I'll never understand why people think this is a valid criticism of an article, rather than pointing out an issue they have with the actual content of the article. There's nothing inherently wrong with a company sharing info about the space they operate in. In fact, it should be encouraged as long as what they share is useful.
It's a short-hand for the treatment of the subject being pretty shallow and non-descript, which seems to apply to this article exactly. I read this and didn't learn anything.
Right, but then it starts a meta-conversation about why the article got posted, or even written. It doesn't have the down-the-rabbit hole trait of an individual project of passion, or the sort of authoritative voice of a conference talk or even a Netflix blog post, it doesn't really speak to specific actionable technologies so it's not the kind of onboarding a Toward Data Science post would be. And that meta conversation inevitably leads to, oh, it's a marketing funnel. So just saying "this is content marketing" I think is a shibboleth for the entire conversation that starts with "pretty shallow and non-descript".
Of course I didn't write the original comment and there's something to say for flag-and-move-on or whatever, and other people did enjoy it. I'm just saying I understand the impulse to short-circuit the entire tedious conversation!
It provides more information. It's shallow and non-descript because it's an ad is the argument. I don't know if I believe that here. It's a blurry line with sponsored content.