While I agree with virtually everything you say, somehow, I would like to imagine, digging deep, that the true disagreement here is about money: who earns it, how and why.
Of course, it also seems clear, on the surface, that someone has crossed an ethical boundary by making serious statements in public which offend. Such things, made in the context of humor and satire are said frequently on this platform. Even in the context of sarcasm. And often without criticism.
But always, even there, beneath the surface, I believe, it reveals an angst regarding money: why it goes in one direction and not another.
The poets on this platform have historically complained about those who “write for money” while they garner so little. Do they not have some justification? On the other hand, so many of their poems may be, shall we say, unpublishable? So, are they justified?
Who deserves to be paid? Everyone? Is Medium a “socialist” institution? (BTW, I am a long-time, card-carrying member in good standing of DSA, so no personal criticisms there, okay?) On this platform, the audience decides who gets paid. Period. The quality and nature of the writing simply does not matter.
Which is not to say the average “best” writing (in terms of earnings) is bad or vice versa. Simply that writing quality and earnings have little to do with each other, on this platform or so many other venues these days.
Which creates something of a quandary for those who believe they have some stake in the “writing quality” game. Agreed that taking their “angst” out in over-the-top emotional statements in public is bad form (the example of your “friend” is certainly not the worst I’ve seen among editors in my five years on this platform...).
But it is inevitable.
And if you, or anyone, would like to have at least one good definition of a “good writer” it would be this: someone with a thick skin.