Continuously feeding someone false information can change their perception of what’s right in the first place. That’s the whole point of impression ads. That’s why companies will pay so much to imprint an image on viewers.

If you are looking for a camera, going to a review site will give you a fair chance to find the product that fits your needs (most likely a lens module for your phone). Looking at Canon ads is not that.

They are making you associate brands or products with certain lifestyles, beautiful people, or status. This will bias your choices towards spending too much money on things that do quite little for your happiness in the end.

If an advert doesn't do a detailed comparison with other products then it's trying to convince you by manipulation, not presenting you information and relying on your agency.

A short version of this would be any product information media output that doesn't detail a products principle flaws is manipulation intended to sidestep your agency.

When did you last see a fizzy drinks (pop, soda) advert that said "tap water is better for you and cheaper but our brand advertising is supposed to associate drinking our drinks with being cool, so choose to avail yourself of our continued widescale brainwashing of your society to help you feel socially superior" or "we make sure our batteries mtbf is 2.5 years, with a narrow sd so that it needs replacing just after the warranty period expires; the battery though, it's glued in - clever eh!".

The central tenet of market capitalisms optimisation relies on consumers having perfect information and operating on that information. Advertising, the ads I've ever seen, are a direct effort at circumvention of that.

Yes, people still have some agency, otherwise ads wouldn't be needed. But ads purpose is to erode that agency.

Your post sounds like the attempted justification of someone who uses advertising?