That phrasing like that is a shibboleth. (It shows the person's beliefs/political attitudes). From that statement, you can predict what the author's statements on various things will be. Or at least, it's unsurprising.

Listening to a variety of viewpoints in good faith is a good idea. Tribal, internecine discussion is usually much more predictable than that, though. I liked the term "internet of beefs" for that.

I do like the idea of recognizing that people are human, and not just political abstractions. But, I can also understand how natural the 'internet of beefs' stuff makes political abstractions the most convenient way of viewing people.

How is it relevant to the topic she is discussing?

Because a significant portion of the article relates to using Twitter as a tool to help understand people who are different from yourself. An important aspect of that is being aware of how you differ from them.

Because the author is immediately pandering to the potential twitterati reaction to his article?

Her article. As they told you in that sentence. And their byline.

(I know there's some weird campaign against pronouns but that doesn't mean that all people writing on the internet are now "him")

oops, my mistake