The article tripped my "is this shilled" senses too. Either the author got paid or they've had some really pent up frustrations with the FSF for a remarkably long time that they needed to blow off.
The article seemed more concerned with making sure the FSF was blown up, rather than with creating something to move forward the concerns brought up.
This is especially confusing since the existence of the FSF doesn't really impact one way or another the existence of other groups pushing forward other agendas. The only risk is one group losing mindshare to the other.
I can certainly see supporting free software to ensure user's rights as well as supporting other sorts of 'public software infrastructure' to ensure security or availability of services at the same time.
My guess is some pent up frustration with the political infighting in the FSF.
You don't need logic if you're a believer working tirelessly against the unbelievers.