This is presented as DeepFake-like technology. However the whole issue with DeepFakes is that they are (or can be) indistinguishable from a real video. Any tech or feature that deliberately or due to limitations in the approach doesn't do that isn't really DeepFaking anything, so I don't quite think the article is on the right track. Once companies actually incorporate DeepFake tech we might be able to make some sort of early assessment, but it's way too early to draw any conclusions yet.
Edit: I guess the author gets this notion from a TechCrunch article they linked, which also essentially calls all these type of filters DeepFaking. It's not. Really, look at the videos of Cameo.
On a side note, we should really have a proper name for this (ultrarealistic fake videos), since the origin of DeepFake is indeed a bit too specific to the technology. Who knows, maybe in the future there are other approaches that will work as well.
I don't know what they intended to convey - that anyone in tech==evil.
Imagine the headline that puts journalism through a similar purity test: "then the journalists monetized them". They'd have you banned on social media
But headlines are often very misleading, and that's all I'm going on here.