>

Yes, “different type of targeting” means you can still do targeting. Just not user-specific targeting. In many situations contextual targeting is actually far more effective (e.g., search ads have performed incredibly well even prior to much use of personal user info/history, because keywords searched at the time of search represent by far the most valuable piece of information to select the highest expected value ad).
Using dominance to block claim of dominance >

Just use it as evidence for the next one when this one falls through! >


allegations the social media giant abused its dominant position to monetise users’ personal data

That is their entire business model. Not sure what they are defending against here. >

This is the business model of most social media companies and I don't know what the alternative would be except making people pay subscriptions to use sites. >

Not a business expert, but I don't believe you need to gather and sell people's personal data in order to sell advertising on your site. >

You don’t, but to generate targeted ad’s as well as content feedback loops which in turn get you more targeted ad’s does require personal data. >

Nope. Content-based targeting (e.g., AdWords, originally) doesn’t need to know anything about the user. >

Which is a completely different type of targeting.  That’s targeting people based on a product they’re looking at not something like “show this ad, to men between 30 and 40, who have gotten a car repair within the past 60 days”.