Conveniently leaving out the second definition from your own link:

2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage, exploiting migrant farm workers

The article is about definition 2 folks.

I too find the key to communication is to ignore the definition plainly being used by those I'm talking with in favor of a secondary definition that allows me to manufacture a needless gripe out of the thin air.

What difference does it make if there is an alternate meaning to the word than the one they are using?

They wrote the article.

But not the comment (I hope). Either way, it doesn't matter, the commenter I replied to gave me a thoughtful response and I have to admit that I was wrong.

The same person wrote the article and the comment you replied to.

I'm talking hardwaresofton's original comment that started this chain. His reply was helpful. I'm not talking about Drew's comments in this chain. Drew's comments have not been useful.

You said the article used definition 2. Not hardwaresofton's comment.

Yes, it does. But hardwaresofton convinced me his comment used 1, when I thought it was part 2 and it was his comment that triggered this conversation.

Perhaps you're confused because of the order the comments appear in? You might have to see the time stamps, and track the numerous replies I made in the tree of comments.

Aye, there are two definitions. They are not reliant on each other.

The word "lead" also has several definitions, among them: the metal, and the thing you use to walk your dog. A dog needn't be involved in the former, nor the metal in the latter.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lead