It's bad because it makes it harder to implement a browser so the "spec" just becomes whatever the leading implementation supports.
When I clicked on the article, I thought it was going to be about how the web gives a space for all voices even the marginalized or minorities to be seen/heard. Not this nonsense.
The Brooklyn bridge is a singular piece of infrastructure that millions depend on. I think it makes for a bad analogy.
A better analogy would be something more like websites, where people can tinker and create and contribute without much consequence. For example, the local community garden's board saying, "Requiring a precise and strictly uniform planting layout and soil composition is intolerance!" Well... that'd be quite reasonable?