That might be true but it's been done to death because it's applicable basically every time commercial coverage of a privacy-related topic. It has the vibe of "we should improve society somewhat. yet you participate in it. curious!". Not to mention in publications with proper editorial independence, the "business side" (ie. the side that's responsible for adding the ads/trackers) is firewalled from the side writing the articles, so there isn't even really a contradiction.

It's more like, "you complain that people throw sand in your eyes, yet you also throw sand in people's eyes, curious." This is not "yet you participate in society." Unlike participating in society, these behaviors are entirely optional and they can stop any time they want, they just prefer not to. Editorial independency doesn't absolve them. It just means that they're doing the right thing in one area but not another.