I find the phrasing interesting. This is in the title and in the article itself in similar form, but:

  Starlink near-misses with other spacecraft are getting 'out of control'

By the phrasing the blame is laid on Starlink, which may be the reality but collecting the numbers alone don't justify that implication, which is most of what this article provides.

As someone else pointed out, Starlink's presence in LEO has more than doubled the number of satellites so it kind of makes sense that there'd be a corresponding increase in the number of incidents, and just by the odds that Starlink would be involved in around half of them. The other claim in the article, that when Starlink's ~12k satellites are in orbit they'll be involved in 90% of these incidents also make sense. They'd make up about 90% of satellites in LEO using the present numbers.

If half the cars on the road are Fords and half the accidents reported involve Fords that doesn't mean Ford cars or drivers are somehow worse than the rest, it actually means they're average. It'd be more interesting if the number of incidents leaned toward Starlink for something other than just conventional probability calculations, that is they accounted for a larger-than-expected share of incidents.

Two stats provided, for Starlink and OneWeb. Starlink has 1700 satellites and 500 incidents/week. OneWeb has 250 satellites and 80 incidents/week. Starlink has 6.8x as many satellites. Again, by the numbers with what's reported here Starlink is no worse than other actors in this space. OneWeb has about a 32% incident rate (incidents/satellites) while Starlink has 29%. By these numbers they're actually slightly better than OneWeb here.