A tiny minority of founders really work on products that change the world. Many just hope that their company is acquired and that is how most "successful" startups "exit". The so-called "exit" is a badge of honor (even if the company had been through a fire-sale or acqui-hire)
There are other good points in the column, but I think Sam is a bit too defensive when he says "ignore the haters and work on whatever you find interesting. The internet commenters and journalists that say you’re working on something that doesn’t matter are probably not building anything at all themselves."
If someone is a "hater", does it really matter if they are building anything else ?
Tesla has its critics, social-networking-for-cats will also have its critics. Both companies may assert that they are changing the world. However, I don't think it makes sense for the latter to use the former as an example of why its critics are all "haters". Of course, I don't mean to suggest that the latter deserves its critics. I'm just saying that there is no need to circle the wagons against these so-called "haters".
If you think your startup is worth it, just work on it. Most startups don't change the world in a big way, but that shouldn't stop you from trying.