I doubt you read the full article.
It's quite a bit more reasoned than you suggest. The author acknowledges his bias, its source, and even that it's not entirely rational. But he's also exploring how e-bikes change the dynamic of pedestrian vs. bike vs. car traffic in a city, what kinds of pros and cons exist, and whether there are any rational sources of objection to the way e-bikes are currently being used.
He acknowledges that e-bikes are fun and useful: "I found the effect narcotic and delightful: on a flat road, I moved faster than I did on a normal bike, with less exertion. [...] Assisted living was so pleasant!"
Commiserating with a friend, they conclude that despite their objections, "for all our shared sense that something was wrong with electric bikes, we agreed that, by any rational measure, they are a force for good. [...] The engines are efficient, they reduce congestion [...] Fewer cars, more bikes."
However, they did identify at least one issue worth considering:
> "if you are not human-powered, you should not be using human-powered infrastructure. You should be in the street. E-bikes being licensed as motorized vehicles is good. E-bikes being in human-powered infrastructure is no good..."
Of course it's not quite that simple - e-bikes mingling with cars seems more dangerous than them mingling with human-powered traffic - but it's a point worth considering, for sure. For example, it's much easier to get up to 20 mph on an e-bike than an ordinary bike, and they tend to be quieter, too, so for pedestrians they can be quite terrifying. As the number of e-bikes increases, it's likely to become necessary to address this kind of thing.
He also notes the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between human-powered and assisted activity in an increasingly machine-assisted world, acknowledging that the distinction in the quote above is becoming less easy to make.
Even if you disagree with his perspective, it ought to be possible to read an article like this and recognize its value, unless you're even more ideologically fixed on a particular perspective than the author is.