It seems to me like you and the author agree about what good OOP should be (encapsulated state, message passing), except they argue that "traditional" OOP is not useful, and you see Traditional OOP as Good OOP. In fact, "good" is not used a single time in the article so I don't see how they could be constructing a strawman against it. I'm guessing the author is using "traditional" in the sense of what is traditionally taught, which in my experience was closer to Java beans and FactoryFactory classes. In other words, a terrible misinterpretation of Alan Kay's ideas.
If you actually look at the framework they are presenting, it pushes the developer towards many of the "good OOP" points you made. So I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.
If you actually look at the framework they are presenting, it pushes the developer towards many of the "good OOP" points you made. So I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.