What they did is sort of like correcting a grammar mistake that their interlocutor made, but ignoring the actual argument. It is a sham deflection, not a response. Their argument holds no water until the issue is addressed.
So my guess they would respond the same and you already their response.
To be brutally honest it is your point that I don't understand. What is the core issue being raised that wasn't addressed and why would it matter so much that it invalidate the whole thing.
Totally reasonable. But the fact that they don't seem capable of even beginning to suggest alternatives makes what they are saying completely useless. It would be like saying "we need to solve global warming, so we need to end all coal mining and oil drilling". Ok... but you can't just do that. You have to have alternatives and a plan to transition a society utterly dependent on fossil fuels onto something else. We do have some answers to those questions, and any useful attempt to address climate change will go over that.
This is just saying "turn off the pumps, and it will work itself out" without even attempting to explain what is supposed to come next. It is pure whining, not anything more.
Given that what counts as "invasive" is a semantic question, I'm not what you're trying to say here. You seem to be using this as a dismissal, without any justification.
They didn't ignore the fact that the web is paid for by ads. They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay.