I've read the article and the original thread, and I don't see at all how the author is "misinterpreting" Kay.

Maybe there is some confusion in terms of, which of the ideas in the article are the author's and which are Kay's. But the author does appear to understand that Kay's original discussion had a very different context, and does make statements of this nature:

> Kay was likely gesturing to a different reason data might be a bad idea. I’ll address that in a moment.

And overall I'm struggling to see anywhere I think Kay's original meaning is being misinterpreted or misrepresented. Can you point to a passage?