I don’t really agree with the article. It basically could be summarized as “if he did nothing with it (I guess) we’d say why isn’t he doing anything, but if he does things that are objectively bad (e.g. rate limiting tweet views for real users), we chastise him for it, what gives!?” The article is missing the obvious scenario where he truly improves the site, increases views, avoids chaotic controversy, improves earnings, etc. He has done a lot and it doesn’t seem (from the outside) to be working, thus the negative press.