There's fair criticism to be made of most translations.
The fallacy begins when one assumes that there is some kind of perfect ideal translation that exists somewhere, that translations can be compared to. Translation, especially literary translation, always involves some amount of arbitrary, artistic parti pris.
Wilson's translation involves a lot of formal (preservation of the number of lines, iambic pentameter) and rhetorical (modernization of the vocabulary) constraints that require sometimes wide deviation from the original. That's inevitable.
What's interesting however is to look at those deviations as an opportunity for conversation, not as an opportunity for correction, which is just nonsensical in the context of a translation that doesn't aim primarily at accuracy. Except for clear mistakes, most of the choices Wilson made were made in complete awareness of the trade-offs they involve.
The Twitter discussion fantasizes about a translation where no such trade-offs exist, which tells you enough about how much translation experience the authors have (none).
Whitaker's review is a good academic review that doesn't at least fall for those beginner misconceptions and recognizes trade-offs explicitly: "Both Green and Verity use a long, six-beat line. This has the advantage for them that they can translate almost every word of the Greek original. But it also, sometimes, leads to a wordiness, a certain turgidity in their versions that makes one sigh for the concision of Wilson."