This article is completely correct of course. But there is zero hope that it'll be taken seriously at all.
Just the other day, here on HN someone seriously proposed the idea that hate speech doesn't lead to violence against minorities[1]. I pointed at the Rwanda genocide, and got voted down (a lot), because the OP claimed that 10% of deaths didn't prove my point. Then I pointed out that was at least 60,000 deaths, and that was downvoted too.
Enough people clearly want to ignore things which disagree with their world view that there is zero chance that this destabilising behaviour will stop.
This doesn't mean, of course, that you're wrong about genocide, ethics, Rwanda, etc. It means that if you want to post about these things you're responsible for separating out the dross that people will otherwise react to. The contrast between the magnitude of those topics and the pettiness of I-was-right-on-the-internet only calls attention to the latter.
But I think YCombinator needs to take this problem seriously. The Sam Altmann piece made it completely clear he has no idea how some of the ideas he thinks are bad are promoted and grow on HN.
The fact we can't talk about how ridiculous downvoted on that post are means it just keeps happening. I think there is complete blindness about how completely outrageous that is, and how it reinforces the negative stereotypes of silicon valley.
I probably could argue the point better, but honestly I don't think arguing about it is the point.
Really, all the moderation team here could read this article.