Did you read what the issue is even about? It's about setting the string "terraform" in a config file. It's not some personal data or evil tracking token.
Let me try to describe what the Azure Partner ID is meant to be used for. Say you build a SaaS service that runs on Azure. As many Azure-based companies do, you have a Sales and Technical Account Manager from Microsoft that is responsible for things like getting you discounts based on sustained usage, perhaps helping bring you to market through their own sales channels, etc. They (and subsequently you) are measured on the basis of how much consumption of Azure resources you drive.
While you're still a purely-SaaS product, this consumption is easy to measure. It's basically just the size of your bill at the end of every month. But as your business grows, you start to have some customers who don't want to put their data into some random SaaS application; they'd rather run your application inside their subscription, either through some middleware or just in its own resource group. You can do this integration technically, but now you have a problem-all that consumption that used to be credited to you is now invisible. From your Azure sales rep's perspective, your usage is going down. It becomes harder to justify all those discounts and services they're giving you.
Enter the Azure Partner ID. You simply set this flag on all the resources you're spinning up inside your customers' subscription, and it tags that consumption as being driven by you. The bill is going to someone else, but you get the credit. You go to your sales rep and say "please add all the resources from Customer XYZ with Partner ID ABC to me", and they have some tooling to do that.
That's the field that Hashicorp is using/abusing. It doesn't do anything directly by itself (as far as I can tell, it's totally invisible to normal off-the-shelf Azure tooling), but clearly somewhere the infrastructure exists for someone who doesn't normally get to look at Customer XYZ's subscription, to at least see the consumption of some part of it. That's a violation, in my opinion.
It's twisting the semantics of the tag, at the very least. You can easily make the case that a SaaS service is directly contributing to consumption when they run a service in someone's subscription. That's almost certainly consumption that wouldn't have existed at all without that service. On the other hand, it's clearly ridiculous to say that if it wasn't for Terraform, none of the resources Terraform has spun up would've been created.
All users of terraform will look the same, it's to get a general idea of "how many terraform using instances are there".