If, as you acknowledge, these are user-hostile patterns, using them is going to lose the trust of your users, and in the end you will flounder, even if in the short term they provide economic benefits. That's the premise of the article, and yes the companies are silly for employing these dark patterns because they're trading long-term trust in their brand (and thus long-term profits) for short-term economic advantage.
Actually - they often are silly. It might be $x right now, but it turns into $10x later on as the consequences of that initial damage roll on and affect future interactions, recommendations, etc.
It's very easy to quantify the short-term gains being sneaky get you. It's much harder to quantify the longer term consequences.
What evidence do you have for that? Even assuming perfect knowledge, humans are what run these companies, and we all know how irrational those can be. Sure, sure, "the market" will kill them off, sooner or later (maybe; that's also assuming perfect knowledge of consumers, and we know how true that is), but until then, this shadiness should be called out and shunned whenever possible.
These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx .
Sometimes you do things you know have a negative, because you believe that the positives outweigh it.
Not that I agree with these dark patterns, but I understand why companies choose to implement them.