They wrote which things they're concerned about in the article. They included things like "Capitalists say it will replace workers", which, if you're a magazine intending to provide your own perspective, repeating the capitalist narrative but then inverting it and saying it's bad does, I think, suck as a narrative.

I'd agree with you if that was in fact the only thing they mentioned... but there was much more nuance and content than that in the article if you read the full thing.

For example, this raises the issue of a drop in quality and a change in publishing model - which is obviously quite different than parroting back an existing argument and saying its bad like you are suggesting.

> Even if you lost 60 percent of your readership, you might still make a lot more per story, because you can pump them out in seconds.