Sure, but that doesn't matter in this context. His goal clearly isn't to perform a call to action to companies, because a writer like him should know that companies are already hesitant to listen (which is part of the point of the article) and his language choice gives them yet another way out.

>I don't see the problem with naming it crudely so that a nice, simple, rude word can summarize this very real thing that so many here and elsewhere make their daily bread in expanding.

I already laid out the problem:

>If your goal is simply to rant on the internet, the term is perfect. If you want this to spread to larger and larger news and around corporate meetings, we already shot ourselves in the feet.

I guess in this case you are the former. Which is fine. But I personally sought a larger scale change. Tired of arguing over the internet to no effect.