As the other commenter said, and I want to reiterate, what led me to start with the talk about the private keyword is the big bold header that says "Myth: C has

As the other commenter said, and I want to reiterate, what led me to start with the talk about the private keyword is the big bold header that says "Myth: C has no equivalent to “private”" and the first code snippet that shows how you can have "private" fields in C++ and the following ones that show an "equivalent" implementation in C. So I think it's reasonable to infer that the author is talking about encapsulation and "the private keyword" as somewhat interchangeable (and I don't disagree, for this discussion they're practically the same). Not only that, but the points I made are about the implementation shown in the article, which is independent of whether the talk is about "private equivalency" or "lack of encapsulation": the gist of it is "yes, you 'encapsulate' things but not in the same way and it comes with disadvantages that aren't really there in other languages". With all that said, I don't think all that condescending talk about the lack of reading comprehension or skills, without actually going into the arguments themselves, is really necessary or positive.