If anything, I think the r/diving example would have been a good choice to include alongside the others. It demonstrates how something that's already risky can quickly turn even more dangerous when inexperienced (or outright deceitful) mods are appointed.

It's not that I find the examples in the article to be wrong, more that they give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the author really had to dive deep to find any material to support their view. It gives off the same vibes as the articles claiming everyone's outraged about ABC, when really the whole thing is based off three tweets and a TikTok. I'm not in any way trying to say that that's what's actually going on here, merely that it's the way the article reads (at least to me).