You're making it political, but it's just positioning. A PR firm pitched Wired this story as part of a campaign to remind everyone that SoundCloud once mattered¹ in preparation for their forthcoming fire sale.
¹ Probably not as much as this story suggests, though. Artists who started on SoundCloud weren't using it exclusively. For example, TikTok (not SoundCloud) broke "Old Town Road".
The only one they said is "sexualities", and here again I would challenge your re-framing. "Embracing all sexualities" doesn't just mean "not being homophobic". Not actively discriminating against differences between people is the first step. The next step is being welcoming of differences.
Now, is Soundcloud doing that? I'm not sure. I don't know, I'm not a soundcloud user, nor am I queer. But there are absolutely spaces and websites that attract queer creators/users, and ones that don't. There are some that are neutral bland neutered corporate spaces. And some that are unapologetically vibrant and attract a greater percentage of people from - well "all genres, sexualities, religions, and definitions of music and art".
Perhaps Wired hasn't proven to you that Soundcloud isn't one of those sites, but it doesn't sound like you want them to.
Otherwise you’re just trying to get brownie points in how cool and progressive you are while solving your imagined problem.
I find this kind of politicised editorialising from publications like Wired quite tiring. I have many acquaintances who produce EDM and I was on Soundcloud from 2012 or so. They never saw it in these terms. Of _course_ a platform for hosting your music tracks isn’t exclusive to a particular race, religion or ethnicity. Can anyone name a counter-example in music for whom that’s not the case, outside of obscurity? Or indeed any comparable tech platform?
Some seem to have decided that being neither sexist, racist nor homophobic in your banal business offerings is a revolutionary development from the past decade or two.