Ads don't reveal targeting criteria, the visible content of the ad doesn't indicate the user's private profile, it just means an advertiser chose to target them. No one treats the ads you're shown as credible & accurate determinants of anything, let alone sexuality.
It might show up in the "ad preferences" page if someone glances over your shoulder while you're looking at it, but generally people glancing over your shoulder to view private information isn't a Facebook privacy problem, it's a people-glancing-over-your-shoulder privacy problem. It turns out that even the most private & secure systems will leak information when you open it and let people see it over your shoulder. It's like saying your web browser puts you in danger if someone glances over your shoulder to see the gay porn you're watching on it.
Yes. Trying to convince someone to change their opinion can easily get out of hand. Its trying to do too much.
Helping people understand other people's opinions is a better stance.
I.e. The person in the article finds being surveilled by a company, outside of their relationship with the company, and having that information available for advertisers to manipulate them for money disturbing, immoral and offensive. Especially for very personal attributes.
And many other people do too. And the European Union.
--
At some point I hope there is a wave of non-ad social media. Imagine how few resources are required to run an online scrapbook?
When you don't need to have thousands of servers collating every scrap of information about you they can get, and applying ever more sophisticated AI to optimally insert "sticky" posts, reinforce your notification checking habit, finding the minimum number of organic friends & family posts they need to give you, and matching you to advertisers and ads.
Applied psychology is 99% of social media's expenses. 99% of the rest is legal and lobby.
do you see the danger these ads put you in?