I’m aware of the arguments against Popper’s ideas, but I don’t see how that connects to the malign activities the article’s author tries to make it responsible

I’m aware of the arguments against Popper’s ideas, but I don’t see how that connects to the malign activities the article’s author tries to make it responsible for. The argument takes a leap from Popper was wrong to neoliberals suck without sufficiently connecting the two. Would neoliberalism never have happened without Popper? Seems unlikely. Would all those malign consequences be fine if falsificationism was, in fact, correct? Why should we prefer a more socialist approach to science instead of say, a Christian approach that would also foreground ethics. Plus, Popper was hardly the first person to argue that science is value neutral. Thinkers have been saying that since the enlightenment.