I guess I'm still not understanding the point you're making about this person being an administrator. Does science change so rapidly that all of the observations that the author made, as a scientist in the last 10 years presumably, are completely invalid? Or maybe that they have a completely perpendicular motive from scientists, because they are now an administrator?
On your last point about the system cannot be fixed, and it could be a lot worse - everything else you're citing is certainly a problem as well. Maybe even bigger in some cases. I still don't see how those are responses to this article's points. It's kinda like a version of "whataboutism" that you're proposing.
I just don't really get the casualness towards a problem that is widely regarded, among scientists, as something fairly serious - "publish or perish". Why do a handful of publishing houses get to have so much control over the careers of people who dedicate their lives to a field, often at great personal and financial expense (in the form of lost wages and consistently lower pay)?
I thought science was supposed to be about the discovery, and dissemination of information. Why is the process of doing capital-S Science so gatekept behind university or big corp doors? Why is the only output of most scientific research a dozen pages of virtually indecipherable material? Why can't we know about the process that was taken to arrive at those conclusions, especially when they are so incredibly consequential to all of our lives? Science is responsible for virtually all modern advances - why doesn't the public have the right to understand it fully?
That's my takeaway from the article, and I'm curious how you arrived at such a wildly different conclusion.
"Publish or perish" is not about publishing papers. It's about winning the competition for opportunities to do science. It's about collecting more merits than your peers, in order to land on the right side of the funding line. If publishing becomes easier, you need to publish more in order to win. Or publishing becomes less relevant, and you have to focus on other merits.
If there are more qualified and interested scientists than funding opportunities, there is competition. If you want less competition, you need fewer potential scientists and/or more funding.
The main flaw in the article from my point of view is the administrator attitude. You identify a problem, and then you propose solving it by playing politics and making major changes to the system, with unpredictable consequences across the fields. A more constructive approach would be focusing on solving the problem in your own niche, and letting others figure out the solutions in theirs.
For example, instead of complaining about for-profit publishers and other abstract things, people can just act. There are examples of editorial boards resigning collectively and starting independent journals, which then replace the old for-profit journals or at least become competitive with them. And in some subfields of computer science, many conferences have moved their proceedings from Springer to the LIPIcs series published by a German non-profit.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but in my subfield (scientist is such a broad term) I would say in my opinion at least half of those key problems that are listed in the article are basically non issues. Things really are quite different field to field.