Okay, taking Facebook as an example. Let's say you visit a random website and get tracked by a Facebook Pixel (which happens to be an image, not JavaScript), what happens then? You see behaviourally-targeted advertisements on Facebook and partner destinations, instead of generically-targeted advertisements. I don't agree with the assertion that this has a materially negative impact on anyone's privacy or life as a whole.
I understand that this is an unpopular opinion, but it's what I believe.
> I don't agree with the assertion that this has a materially negative impact on anyone's privacy or life as a whole.
I haven't asserted that it has any negative impact. To say that it has no tangible impact (as you have) is decidedly wrong. Either the manipulation is working at a grand scale (which is scary in its own right), or people that invest that much money in targeted ads are idiots buying snake oil. Regardless, Facebook and Google now command huge social and political influence, and they're entirely in the business of using my private information to sell ads.
I guess wanting to be the constant target of increasingly direct attempts at manipulation is a matter of personal preference, but the fact that it has an obvious material impact on the world is not.
That you think it's a fair analogy doesn't help me in the slightest to understand what your reasoning is.
> Disabling Javascript isn't enough to 'protect your privacy',
In the same sense as wearing a face shield while operating a chainsaw is not enough to save your life. It goes a long way.
> I haven't heard of any tangible impact that would have on anyone's life.
Have you heard of Facebook? Google?