Consider a doctor that smokes during consultations subjecting you the patient to the ill effects of their secondhand smoke whilst simultaneously recommending that you give up. Perhaps a more accurate analogy. Would you trust the doctor in this scenario?

There is no dishonesty there. Merely acting inconsistent to one's advice. It's not a serious deficiency.

BTW, in a number of countries a large percentage of doctors smoke. It's a cultural thing: They pick up the habit during the stress of medical school. Would you suggest that a large percentage of doctors in those countries not inform patients that smoking is bad for them?

As a politician recently complained about: Purity tests are usually a bad idea.

It's fair to criticize. It's silly to reject their word/work because of it.

Except there's no doctor-patient discrepancy, most people in this thread are in the business and actually do have to make these choices based on their own expertise in the field.

It's a lot more like if all doctors were telling each other they should wash their hands before surgery, but many of them don't really because the tap water is cold and kinda too far away and everybody is doing it and what's the harm really and at least I'm not actively sneezing into the wound, you know?

The doctor smoking does not invalidate their assessment that smoking is bad for you, nor does it make his other "doctoring" services less quality.

For more reasons why (some/small) compromises should be allowed and not considered completely against the core value, see religious extremism.

Sure thing, but the gigantic Google Analytics machine is hardly a small compromise versus all the other ubiquitous tracking.

I don't even consider it a compromise, because literally no one arguing to use GA anyway seems to be able to present both sides of the scale considering the compromise.

Unless the doctor is smoking right next to you and making you breathe the smoke, he's not really hurting anyone but himself.

In comparison here this company is giving out all their user's browsing data to a huge advertising company without the user's explicit consent.

It's not dishonest, whether something is good or bad is never absolute. Something that is bad for someone is not necessarily bad for others.

I think first off that is hypocrisy not dishonesty and in the second place it's probably actually a regrettable and regretted addiction.

Nah it’s like a rehab clinic that requires you to smoke while you read their brochures on why you should quit :)

My dentist smokes.

Doesn't mean she can't clean my teeth and drill holes in my skull or whatever with high proficiency.