I think your analogy is in bad faith. What rapsey clearly meant was that it's absurd to expect to get something for nothing. No business can operate that way, so if you're not willing to pay money then you're compensating them with something else, namely your information.
Your food sample analogy is similar to a "free trial". No company offers permanent free trials (at least not without a paid alternative, such as Spotify), just as no supermarket _only_ hands out free samples without also selling that same product in their stores.
Couldn't a web business also be offering a free sample with upmarket tiers available or alternative funding? How am I supposed to tell? Why does this make it okay for the business to ignore data safety? It would be cheaper for the supermarket to ignore food safety on their free tier, but we don't let them do that.
And then the company is publicly shamed for not providing privacy and security for everyone by the exact people who would never pay for anything anyway.
Your food sample analogy is similar to a "free trial". No company offers permanent free trials (at least not without a paid alternative, such as Spotify), just as no supermarket _only_ hands out free samples without also selling that same product in their stores.