I think this is slightly misguided in this case; I think your position is more used for safety purposes rather than the copyright purposes here (i.e., while both touch on what happens to someone's personal data once online, your example seems to be more about protection and the article is talking about a business agreement)

If the door was allowed to swing both ways, and users could assume that anything that businesses upload is fair game to copy and use for their personal sites, it wouldn't be as egregious. But in many cases, corporations hold far more power when it comes to takedowns for copyrighted material.

What is being argued here is that the hashtags should count as consent, but I think that's really bad because there isn't really any way to give informed consent in the form of a hashtag. Each corporation is going to have different media replication terms and conditions that they offer, and I don't think that you should be able to give away rights to a work without actually knowing what you're agreeing to.

As an aside, I'm aware that often people sign agreements without reading the entirety of the agreement and have no idea what they're agreeing to. In that instance, they at least have the chance to know what it is they're agreeing to and they choose to ignore it. If hashtags become consent, the users wouldn't even have a chance to read the agreement before they agree to it. That just seems like horrible precedent to set.