Don't shift the goal posts here. You claimed "no one is", the response was to show a counterexample and say that "some people are", which is true and clearly falsifies your claim.

You then stripped the "some" out -- _while quoting the response_ (!!!) and asking for more examples. Are you making a different claim now? Because the response was certainly sufficient for your original one.

When people say "no one is" it doesn't mean literally not a single soul in the world is claiming that. Given enough people you can find multiple people who support just about any viewpoint out there.

The views espoused on that blog are -extremely- fringe and not indicative of sentiment in any meaningful capacity. What value does it add to this discussion to point and go "look! at least 3 people are claiming this opinion"? It's arguing for the sake of arguing.

The vast majority of people don't care about wasting computational resources, let alone care about the ecological impact of a website.

What arbitrary threshold of popularity must an opinion pass before it is allowed to be criticized?

There are multiple citations in the article... and also, I don’t think the author, in refuting an opinion that absolutely exists, is asserting that it is “popular.”