The overall bent is a hand-wringing about link rot, which I thought we mostly got over a decade ago. The Internet is fundamentally ephemeral. If you see something you like, save it so you can repost it later. If you rely on someone else to keep in up indefinitely, you're being foolish.
Around the edges of that main discussion, the Atlantic also touches on censorship in all the wrong ways, re-iterating the too-common view that censorship is good as long as the good guys do it. They at least argue that this censorship should be transparent and censored works still accessible in some way, but they seem to not understand the nature of what they're talking about.
Censored works aren't censored to protect the public. They're censored to protect the rich and powerful. That's why "right to be forgotten" really exists. That's why Google and Youtube and Twitter and Facebook quash anything that goes against the accepted narrative in any given field. They aren't protecting the public from dangerous misinformation. No one gives a shit about the public. They're protecting the financial and political interests of some very powerful people.
Given this, talk of a "poison cabinet" only illustrates ignorance of the issue. The Memory Hole cannot be divorced from the censorship process, it's a core part of it. If people can still find the information in some form, it's not censored enough to make the people it threatened happy.
And this leads to the final point, which is that the real reason the web is "rotting" isn't link rot, it's censorship on the part of tech monopolies, due to their joined-at-the-hip relationship with every large corporation and industry imaginable due to advertising and other deals. The fact that links die doesn't matter much: you can just repost the material. The fact that links ARE ACTIVELY KILLED to suppress their information is a much more serious problem, and one that doesn't have an easy solution besides full breakup of the tech monopolies.