A straw man is a distorted or mischaracterized recapitulation of another person's argument. This distorted argument can then more easily be attacked. It's a very common way for politicians, ideologues, and other dumb people to argue. Sometimes, fair or unfair, a straw man argument can even be effective at winning over a crowd.

In this case the writer is distorting what Andreesson wrote in order to attack it. Here's an example:

"...it’s part of a broader movement that seeks to take all the guardrails off of technological development and push forward with “progress,” whatever the cost may be."

One thing I can say with almost 100% certainty - even though I have not read the manifesto -- is that Andreesson would never make such a stupid argument. Only an idiot would make such a dumb and absolutist argument, and only a politician or other dishonest person would try to assign such a dumb argument to her ideological opponent.

I've no doubt that readers of gizmodo, big government socialists, and many of their fellow travelers found this piece and it's writer to be a fresh new voice for the deep state and managerial classes. But I'm underwhelmed.