People are trying to maximize their time and more specifically, the value they get from their time. You're treating this as not having moral weight/impact. This isn't a neutral statement to encourage.
But are some cheeseburgers more evil than other cheeseburgers? Yes.
The advertisers are adjusting their "attacks" (quite a harsh word) because the same marketing doesn't work forever. People adjust their defenses. They develop new weaknesses and strengths. This behavior is most notably seen elsewhere in biology. It's not as positive of a comparison as I think you intend to make.
The companies who produce advertisements and the share holders who pressure those companies are made up of regular people. System effects are pretty uncontroversially a thing. What one person does in isolation can be very different in impact from an aggregate of people able to bring vast resources to bear is able to do. One person with a gun and a goal is a robbery. One nation with guns and a goal is an invasion.
Advertising would have a better claim at moral neutrality if it were explicitly opt-in. Not You're on this site, so you implicitly give permission to be bombarded with ads, but "Would you like to see an ad about X? Here you go, a one-time ad about X."
The concept of privacy extending to bodily autonomy isn't super-controversial. There shouldn't be an exclusion of the mind from the body either. Minimizing external 'mental subroutines' is a virtuous goal.
