How is that relevant? What does the opinion of FSF (about what a licence “should” contain) have to do what you consider to be the proper meaning of the term “Open Source”?
It is a response to your point numbered "3." above. There are honest and good-willed licenses which are not OSI, written by honest and good-willed people who disagree with OSI.
Yes, and? The FSF may disagree with the OSI on some matters, but the FSF does agree on the definition of the term “Open Source”, which was what we were discussing. Do you have a different definition of “Open Source” (as applied to software), and why should that definition take precedence over that of the definition from the OSI?
To bring it back to the point: The article claimed that “NLLB (No Language Left Behind) has been open sourced by Facebook”, which is misleading, since “open source” has a strict definition, and the license of NLLB did not qualify with the very first point in the OSI Open Source Definition. Facebook released the source code, under an open license; they could even call it a Creative Commons license, which it was. But the article can’t truthfully call it “open source”, since it isn’t.