I agree with some of what you say, although the argument might be more effective in less drastic language.
My reading of cdata's note boils down to this:
* We will collect your data if there's a buck to be made
* We will continue to muck up your copy+paste buffers
with URLs/attribution/info if our subscribers want that
to happen
* We will monitor your mouse clicks
* There will be popups
* I'm trying to be affable ;) ;) ;)
* Your browser will still work fine for certain
definitions of "fine" ;) ;) ;)
Well, I don't think cdata's response sets the stage for other, well-informed HN readers to distance themselves from jerrya's position. cdata is not speaking from a position of significant power or influence--actually I think cdata's hands are tied somewhat in terms of tactics, acting as a quasi-official company spokesman. IMHO this area is the most adventurous of mkn's remarks.
It's not just about confrontation. mkn's "analysis" is built upon a ton of extraordinarily negative assumptions about intention that don't appear to have any real justification at all. More importantly, it's not a very constructive post - I find it quite disruptive. It doesn't focus on the problem or potential solutions.
What's so difficult about saying "My concerns are X, Y and Z. Your proposal does not address X and Y because ...."? If cdata doesn't address such a specific statement THEN maybe mkn can resort to questioning intention, but UNTIL then mkn is just derailing the conversation.
My reading of cdata's note boils down to this: