If you frame the question as, "Would you like to continue receiving free services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, in exchange for targeted advertising?" I think most people would say yes.
>"Would you like to continue receiving free services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, in exchange for targeted advertising?"
That's also a framed question, because it's a false dichotomy. You don't need targeted ads (and thus, tracking) to make money of ad income. I'm not even sure (as others have pointed out) if targeted ads are more profitable. Even assuming that non-targeted ads are less profitable than targeted ones, then so be it. I don't think that the business model and/or profit margin of a company (Google or not) is a valid argument when considering privacy, which I would consider a fundamental right.
Sure, framing the question that way might garner a different result, as would framing it thus:
"Would you feel comfortable giving away information regarding your online activities in exchange for free web services like Google Search, Maps, and Gmail?"
Using the phrase "targeted advertising" is misleading. It's not that the advertising is targeted that people oppose, it's the insight into your online activities is exposed without you having any control over that information's use.
How about: "Would you like to pay $5 a month for services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, for an advertising free experience, better privacy and the entitlement to being the actual customer of Google resulting in better service and fewer surprises down the road"?
