He could have made the point by writing "I had this terrible boss who had no idea about anything and...", her name is irrelevant to demonstrate the issue of decline at Google.
I understand authors frustration, I've experienced the same in the past but could not voice this beyond just some close friends and coworkers (who knew it already anyway), for fear of repercussions. I've since left but of course this person remains, and from what I hear is still as bad.
Outsiders might join that organization unaware of this. Others working with those teams might not know this and can get burned by it.
Was this particular call out justified? I don't know. But I don't think it is inherently bad.
I agree completely with the article, but naming someone publicly makes the author seem like they are living in a bubble. Ie in their world the head of their org is a public figure, but hardly anyone knows what Flutter is let alone the org structure.
It's not a monolith organization. Google re-structured as a conglomerate (Alphabet). They're critiquing culture/values.
Further, if they were to single out Flutter, wouldn't the target be evident?
If not her, then likely someone she managed: https://twitter.com/timsneath/status/1727192477264974273