This assumes the author has any control over this.
On a web dominated by tracking, the harsh reality is that the avenues capable of reaching the widest audiences are going to bring with them some…baggage.
To conclude that this is dishonest is missing the forest through the trees.
Since tracking is the dominant reality, one of the best things a smart consumer can do is use tools that help counteract it.
An article like this is using the medium available to help people similarly unable to change that medium navigate it a bit more safely.
> Can't have your cake and eat it, too.
What is the cake here? What double standard does the author benefit from if his writing encourages more people to switch to a browser that is more resistant to the tracking people are accusing the author of (endorsing? It’s not clear what the accusation actually is).
Let’s examine an alternative: The author tries to convince the publisher to forego the apparatus that currently drives their business model or they’ll threaten to publish elsewhere.
The publisher calls this bluff, and the author self-publishes instead.
Fewer people read the article, fewer people switch to Firefox, and fewer people gain a modicum of protection from tracking.
What about this outcome is better?
If you gatekeep the act of publishing privacy awareness content in this way, the only thing that happens is fewer people become aware. The only thing that can weaken tracking (aside from regulation) is making it less effective.
This mindset that only the pure/virtuous/perfect implementation is acceptable, and anything else is somehow unacceptable seems like a really good way to make no progress at all.
Refusing to acknowledge the situation we’re in is just denial.