The article goes out its way to ignore the allegations of Stalman's behavior, choosing the easier to defend ground of ambiguous, or easily misunderstood, posts,

The article goes out its way to ignore the allegations of Stalman's behavior, choosing the easier to defend ground of ambiguous, or easily misunderstood, posts, so that it can mount its premise on the "wrong-think!" criticism of cancel culture. I suspect it's less meant to be "persuasive" than it is meant to be defensive.