He had an obligation not to assert as fact things he didn't know to be facts. I'm not going to high-horse it; it's a character fault I share, and I think we all do at times. But at the same time, you can't flip it around on the person who knew he was wrong, and publicly cleared the air. Chacon was wrong about something. That's his problem, his fault, nobody else's.

Specifically, what "facts" did Chacon get wrong?

From the article I'm going to quote Google Code mentions.

There are other assertions about Google's internal adoption of Git, but these seem to be backed up by e.g. the email he screenshotted.

   Furthermore, the players (Sourceforge, Google 
   Code, etc) who eventually did care, after seeing 
   Git and GitHub rising in popularity, simply had 
   no taste.

This is a subjective and opinionated statement, for sure. It doesn't seem like an assertion of fact to me.

    In 2011, both Google Code and BitBucket added Git 
    support, which I’ll mark as the year that the nail 
    was in the Mercurial coffin. 

First part fact, second part clearly opinion.

    Just 4 years later, in 2015, Google Code just 
    completely gave up and shut it’s service down. In the 
    email they sent out, they basically said “just move to 
    GitHub”. 

What is non-factual here? He screencaps the email.

    So, Why Not Google Code?

This section is really about what Github achieved, no direct Google Code assertions.

    The original article is correct, the other 
    hosts focused on distribution and revenue streams. 
    We cared about developers.

Well, this is a speculation that (according to one Google Code member) is not correct - "DannyBee" claims they just wanted to avoid a SourceForge monoculture.

Is this really the point of contention?

I read the article in the context of "a guy who worked at Github talking about his experience at Github, which unavoidably will also mention externalities like the competition" and not at all in the context of "hey! this is the inside scoop on google! I got facts about Google's inner workings!"

I just don't think there's a reasonable assumption that this should have been like, a rigorously fact-checked statement.

Expecting a personal blog to adhere to the standards of some other kind of publishing is misguided and unrealistic. This is clearly a personal account and I'm just baffled that anybody would confuse a personal account like this with capital-j Journalism.

This probably reads as pedantry (if anybody actually reads this post) but it's really, an honest attempt to understand.