I interpret the parenthetical as meaning the feedback they received sometimes contained the "non invasive" precision and other times it didn't and they're addressing both at once.
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.
I disagree. The entire point of the post is that it challenges a background assumption that most people don't even realize they're making. You might find the question of business models to be more of interest, but if the feedback they need to respond to shows a lack of awareness that an invasion is even taking place, they need to establish that fact before anything else about the issue could be fruitfully discussed!
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.