And that will be consistent with the First Amendment how?

Complainants in the European Union are already arguing that behavioural advertising leaks such vast amounts of data on a systemic basis that it couldn't possibly be legal under EU data protection laws.

Highlighting another long-term incompatibility between current EU regulatory approaches and the free expression approach taken in the US. Unless we're going to overrule all the commercial speech cases in the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence since 1975, some other outcome is going to be necessary. Rather than passing by the problem silently, there is much to be gained by encountering it directly.

The greater legal risk may be the catalyst to restore the market towards less intrusive ads. For instance, ads that aren't targeted bases on profiling but are linked only to real-time interest and generic in location.

I"m not sure what this last thought adds to the draft. If the political events described are to be compared directly, I'm not sure that "made possible" is historically sound analysis. Opposition is a necessary but hardly sufficient condition for the collapse of Empire on any of these scales.

I think the strongest route to improvement here is tighter focus. The present draft depends on an implicit premise that changes in individual behavior joined to provision of better technological alternatives would not suffice to ameliorate the most important social harms in the present situation. Perhaps that should be made explicit, and the limits of whatever your evidence is for that conclusion outlined. I'm not sure I completely disagree, but I know that absolutely inexpensive computers costing less than a cellphone charger costs; equipped with free software that anyone can copy, modify, improve and redistribute without payment; along with bandwidth that is less costly to deliver and can be more fairly distributed would make a network of pervasive, inexpensive, privacy-respecting services for individuals possible. So I know that we can provide ourselves with the equivalents of the mail, calendar, social sharing, etc., that we need, without dependencies on businesses offering services in return for behavior collection. Why, at that point, should I conclude that I need government more to engage in regulating the businesses, which are rich and will fight back forever, more than I need government to help educate people how to make better choices (which everyone agrees is government's job) ? If the state taught people how to use services made from sharing and without privacy-violation, and helped defend our efforts from the anti-competitive efforts of the platforms to stop us, why wouldn't that be better than an effort by the state to control the platforms, which is costly, time-consuming, and not necessarily freedom-reinforcing once the state has gained more power over the network? You may well have answers to these questions, which would be immensely valuable to read.