My criticism is exactly what I wrote. If that "you're the product" statement is always true, then we are necessarily Mozilla's product that they sell to Google.

My criticism is exactly what I wrote. If that "you're the product" statement is always true, then we are necessarily Mozilla's product that they sell to Google. If it's not always true or is in no way an informative reductive statement (in that all economic gradients could be "products" in a trivial sense), then it should be dropped from the page because it serves as nothing more than a (disingenuous) marketing slogan. The purpose of this tool is ostensibly activism from transparency, not activism from the rabble-roused. It's a similar argument for the name "collusion". Good marketing, yes, and maybe that's important to get attention and the name isn't that negative. At the same time, it paints everyone with the same brush when, again, the ostensible goal is not to shut down all ad networks on the internet, or the sites that are funded by them, but to give transparency into the links between the ad networks and the sites we visit, in order to hopefully force responsible behavior and give plain choices to end users. And that's why I pointed to the EFF's statements in that article. They acknowledge the tensions inherent in the internet we've built and inherited, and postulate that it's possible to force everyone to be better actors without having to burn the house down. Moreover that meaning is exactly what they say, without resorting too much to rhetoric.