It's from someone with experience in the environment, so maybe it's just that the “boilerplate views” are common because they accurately reflect the situation, which would itself be a valuable (though uncomfortable to the same people that like to dismiss the perspective as “boilerplate views”) insight.
Essentially, she says: “It’s important to remember that Google is an ad platform and that Facebook is a surveillance platform.”
Google does indeed run an ad platform. But that's like calling any magazine or newspaper an ad platform. True, yet neither accurate nor interesting.
And don't get me wrong. I'm all for adblocking and razing Facebook to the ground. But I don't want to read empty mood affiliation pieces.
At least newspapers and magazines have subscribers that pay directly for the content. In fact, since Google and Facebook have eaten their advertising lunch, legacy publishers are more dependent on subscription revenue: https://medium.com/the-graph/advertising-vs-subscription-a42...
Judging by only this article and the author's n+1 article, I get the expectation that the contents will be not-wrong but not-far-enough. The "boiler plate views" as you put it are popular because they contain blind spots - intentional or not - where a lot of damning criticism can be found. But their exclusion gives comfort to people with one foot in the valley bubble. People will more readily accept criticism of something that involves them if they get to sit on the periphery unscathed.
The risk to such coverage is that the reaction is surface level adaptation. Where problems don't get fixed, they just evolve to be less tangible.
Although the best commentary probably comes late in the series, and very briefly so it's easy to miss, when a sociopathic (white, male) COO comes to Pied Piper offices and right off the bat comments that the gender balance is quite nice but could use a little colour.