They may not be wrong with their primary point, but they neglected to provide an argument to support it. Instead of bothering to argue, they just provide a litany of freeze peach dog whistles. Anyone who doubts that ideology's value would rather have an actual argument laid out.
Perhaps, but that wasn’t the criticism laid out by the GP. In fact they didn’t really have an argument at all, they only tried to discredit the author as “some guy” and his opinion as a “hot take”. Essentially a pseudo-ad hominem to sidestep the argument entirely.
"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."
Ah yes, because bringing in experts who have allegiances to the very same organizations you wish to legislate has worked amazingly so far. And again, you’re utterly failing to provide an actual argument that properly references anything within the article. Instead you continue to sidestep the issue by attacking his credibility and not his points. Perhaps that’s because you don’t have a proper refutation that the OSI are woefully incompetent and are not suited to be in charge of the future of OS AI?
