I have to disagree in this case. It is NOT our job as power users to withhold information because it might hurt people who use it wrong,
What's this about
withholding information? This is not some non-public information the author was privy to, that the public wouldn't otherwise have access to. Your suggestion of withholding is either misguided or misdirection.
The issue is about multiple approaches to solving a problem. The advice given in the article, and the logic upon which it rests, is quite simply flawed.
It's like an automobile publication running an article about how to shut off your "fasten seatbelt warning". There is some information that is quite simply negligent to publish, because the logical consequence of doing so is that readers will be exposing themselves to harm.
It's our job to share what we know and trust people not to be idiots.
You have to think about the audience and understand the difference between ignorance and idiocy. There's an aspect of recklessness in idiocy, whereas an ignorant person simply doesn't know any better. An article like this will have readership with a significant number of noobs, and if the article claims that what it's prescribing is safe to do, many of them will believe it.
The majority will be, but that's not your/our call.
Just to be clear, on whose behalf are you speaking?
And as surely as it's the site's right to publish, it's my right to call editorial judgement into question. Not necessarily in their forums... but I could certainly take my criticism onto to other social media platforms.