Aside from the adoption of a royal "we" in his posting, it is the failure to explain his positions that is so blandifying. Look at this text concluding a short article on why the Google AutoLink is a bad thing:

When Google introduced the rel="nofollow" attribute, along with other industry leaders, we applauded them for moving quickly and decisively to solve a long-standing industry problem, comment and referrer spam. But in hindsight, we should have gone slower. Shortly after the release of the feature it was discovered that it radically changed the way pointing works on the Web. We learned that it's possible to take steps that have very substantial, possibly very negative, effects on the Web, ones that are difficult to take back.

The AutoLink feature is the first step down a treacherous slope, that could spell the end of the Web as a publishing environment with integrity, and an environment where commerce can take place. Today it's not just about technology, it's not even mostly about technology. More and more of our commerce, government, research, and social life take place on the Web. Google should not commercialize it in such a bold, unilateral manner without discussion, consideration of all the possible problems. the online equivalent of an environmental impact statement.

How does it "radically change", what are the "negative steps", how would "discussion" occur? See especially the concept elsewhere in the article described as "against the nature of the Web" - what the heck is that? As all too often in such discussions, there is a veneer of argument but it is presented without the depth (that may well exist) which is the key to convincing me to agree. It is, as a result, all too last-paradigm guruistic to convince, smacking of the craptastic response heard all too ofter "we have thought about that idea and rejected it".

He may be right but who can tell?