More broadly, I'm not sure I fully understand the criticsm. There is paid staff, yes. But that's still a vanishingly tiny percentage of the effort that makes Burning Man what it is. It is still first and foremost a volunteer effort, and lives or dies by that effort. It's exceptionally few people, to my understanding, who earn money. I believe you can find a list of all of them on the BM financials page.
Consider the difference between "music" and "music industry" for example. Or the difference between coding on one's personal open source project and coding on somebody else's dime. Consider how many startups compromise their vision to become commercially successful. Or go talk to somebody at an ad-supported site; you can hear them defend things (e.g., auto-play video ads) that they would have previously reviled.
If people don't like how a hobby project is going, they have no problem shutting it down. But once it's one's living, that becomes almost unthinkable. Which in turn means that other things become almost unthinkable.
So my criticism of this article is that it's basically an exercise in refusing to think about the legitimate issues people have with what Burning Man has become.
But my specific point was that I don't believe the author of the blog post is paid by Burning Man. So I don't believe the content of the blog post would be inspired by that angle (correct me if you find out otherwise). That inclines me to consider its viewpoint more seriously, precisely for the reasons you mention.
It will reduce risks, excluding risky groups and activitys.
It will allow for companys to advertise with edgy art projects.
You can not compromise, when everything you have at the stake is your vacation. You will be compromised, if you start to hate the freaks that might cost you your job.