Both this article and the non-tech companion article [1] skip over talking about why the author wants privacy. The failure to outline her objections makes the countermeasures seem untethered from any motivation; I think that is why so many comments here react negatively to the valuable anti-surveillance work she's doing here.
This could be a issue by issue analysis. For example: "I don't want targeted ads -> prevent collecting targeting data -> use a privacy credit card". This is the easiest way to argue for privacy and can cover a lot of ground, however I worry it's too limited. This gives us the world of the "opt out" button which can fix a specific issue but somehow still leaves a really nasty taste about the surveillance world we are in.
I'd love to see more writers make on-the-principle arguments for privacy. This author clearly has that depth of feeling so it's a real missed chance.