https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
"(...) the notion of the universe expanding at a calculable rate was first derived from the general relativity equations in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann"
The space expands. It's been known for a long time.
We might not know why exactly this happens and there is still some discussion about ultimate fate of the universe although prevalent theory is that it will expand at an ever faster rate until every molecule will be torn from each other and matter will no longer be able to form.
When tracks start moving as well it gets mind bending, and no longer intuitive. Now we have multiple scenarios where the combination of track movement (universe expansion), and train movement result in it being "obvious" you have to exceed C somewhere, which we're told is impossible. Otherwise how can the distances end up where they are. It's between these two points most non-physicists stop as it starts to feel deeply contradictory.
Your "correct" version on the other hand, leaves more questions than answers, not least of which being how do we ever get 46B ly distance in something 13.8B years old. Then you have to cover the expansion, relativity, and hey presto you've written the article. Just skimming the other comments here makes it clear it's not a topic that's well understood or intuitive.
Clickbait it ain't, and the title is a very fair question.
I'm really disappointed to see this the top voted HN answer right now...