There's still a missing link: the article makes an assumption that the incentive to boost the weaker player is greater earnings. Otherwise it's hard to get upset about the practice.
But how does it translate to increased spending? I would guess that having more matched games would lead to both players having more fun and being more satified with their current skill levels.
I saw the video, but I have to say I am not wholly convinced of their argument. For example 1 of the "scripting examples" show a ball going through a goalkeepers' hands. In my opinion the game could have already decided that the player would shoot inside the goal (partially using RNG) and perhaps the rendering messed up a bit when the goalkeeper was jumping towards the ball. I am not sure if this is solid proof of so-called "scripting". Other examples can't really convince me either.
This is somewhat anecdotal, but fairly convincing
I admit it's a big leap and this technology seems like a good idea to an extend but it doesn't reward getting good at the game as much. As mentioned elsewhere, Elo-type matching is an alternative but does have the disadvantage you never get to beat down on noobs.
Some gamers indeed hypothesize that the earning of more money is indeed through better engagement based on artificially balancing games:
> "EA Wants to Get Rid of Fair Matchmaking to Focus on Player Spending & Engagement"
> A popular video titled “TOP 10 SCRIPTING PROOF! EA 100% EXPOSED! FIFA 19” purports to show 10 different clips demonstrating dynamic difficulty adjustment during gameplay, mostly near-misses, goals that should have gone in but don’t, that sort of thing.
A game is just a simulation and the skill of the player doesn't influence every aspect. Any event that is not in complete control can be nudged to benefit the weaker player. For example, a ball that's just in or out.