I think I agree with your sentiment, but should the GP be worse off for being honest/pessimistic/seeing things clearly? I'm sure there are lots of people doing what the GP describes that don't feel they are doing anything immoral. Are they in the clear? If you're actually participating in fraud it's one thing, but doing something legal but morally dubious like working around browser privacy comes down much more to individual perspective.

This potentially is another argument for laws / regulation.

Why should you intentionally disadvantage yourself when someone else will just step in to fill your place? This view doesn't seem any different than expecting a corporation to voluntarily forego a profitable segment of the market.

Regulation is required in such cases. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise.

> no better than the tobacco merchants

Prior to a certain time, tobacco producers honestly had no idea how harmful their product was. Once they found out, they actively tried to hide that fact from everyone. I don't much like adtech, but unlike tobacco it doesn't cause direct physical harm to the individual. They're also pretty up front about the fact that they try to track you.