[mike_hearn]

These days she's independent of the field financially, and has been pretty forthright about condemning bad behavior within it. It's inevitable that insiders will turn on her, because she turned on them. They being angry about it doesn't mean anything by itself, you'd need to decide if her points are legitimate or not without reference to those she's criticising.

[cayley_graph]

I wouldn't say they are angry about it, just disappointed that there's another mass media misinformation source to add to the pile. It's much harder to debunk poor quality material than it is to generate it, and I suspect many of them are busy enough as it is + would rather do something more productive with their time. Nobody gets into science to have low-grade spats with talking heads on the internet.

I have found that academics invite criticism--- indeed, peer review is founded on it--- but well-done scientific debate rarely generates the same click-through rate. It's hard, technical material rather than something to idly watch while you're eating, which is the caliber of the content here. Just compare it to, say, literature reviews from the field or comparisons with prior work in publications. It's not remotely as rigorous or well-founded.