I think there's a huge benefit to talking about the ad problem here. One of the reasons it is hard for linking/quoting Stallman to actually get you anywhere in discussion is that the Stallman view is one of absolute philosophy. "This is philosophically wrong" is not something the average consumer cares about, just like privacy invasion is a ghost nobody cares about until they see its effects. Things like convenience and things being free are very visible, noticeable traits, and the counter to those arguments need to also be visible.
Advertising is a very visible effect of both privacy-invasive systems and proprietary software. People care about how ads affect them because they can see it.
I've found that linking to Stallman's articles tends to promote discussion wherein those who object to his articles don't provide specifics against his arguments to back up their own objections. Those pages are loaded with specific consequences; if you haven't spent time reading them you should.
Also, the case of what the "average consumer cares about" (almost invariably an evidenceless case which serves to benefit a business) is often pitched but always shown to be wrong. As Glenn Greenwald points out very clearly in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOksJKfapVM (around 28m30s) he has challenged the notion that privacy is vague or somehow unimportant, or that anyone doesn't care. In fact, he demonstrates how people who say something like what you assert, "They don't actually mean it. At all. And the proof of it is they do all sorts of things to safeguard their own privacy; I mean we all have things to hide. There are things that everyone in this room would be willing to have their spouse or their best friend or their physician or their lawyer or their psychiatrist know but would be mortified to have anyone else know. The people who say they don't value privacy, they put and use locks on their bedroom and bathroom door, they put passwords on their email and social media accounts, they do all sorts of things there's a place they can go in the world to think and reason and explore without the judgmental eyes of other people being cast upon them. This is really critical to human freedom.".
Greenwald challenges people who pitch a line quite comparable to what you said to take him up on his offer to divulge all of one's credentials to everything they have (no exceptions, all accounts should be included) by emailing them to an account he maintains. He asks them for this info and tells them explicitly, "I just want to be able to troll through what you're doing online and publish under your name...". A perfectly reasonable request for anyone who wants to insist people don't care about privacy. The results of his request: "To this day, not a single person has taken me up on this offer.". That whole talk is worth hearing and reflecting on.
People do value their own privacy even if they hold immature evaluations of the importance of privacy or don't know enough about how computers work to think through the consequences of their tech-related choices. People need to learn about the cost of "things being free" and hold mature discussions of important issues of our day which certainly include how everyday technology affects one's privacy (and the privacy of anyone who goes to their house within range of that Echo always-on mic; it's not just about your choice for yourself in your home). People need to learn about the inherent value of privacy as well as the notion that some degree of privacy is not easily regained when lost, so one should not trade privacy away for convenience (not that I agree with you that Amazon Echo is convenient; even on its own merits it has already failed to distinguish between its owner and people on TV demonstrating the device causing lots of unwanted orders. This clear exposure of a security problem is hardly convenient). We do that work, in part, with discussions like these, not by downplaying the importance of privacy but by teaching people the very practical outcomes you inchoately chastise Stallman for presenting.
Advertising is a very visible effect of both privacy-invasive systems and proprietary software. People care about how ads affect them because they can see it.