I'd probably agree with that characterization. It's not that people are out there specifically claiming memory safety solves everything, but rather that the 'public consciousness' seems to have utterly forgotten that any other kind of safety exists.
As a result, you get languages like (and mainly) Rust being held up as the paragons of program correctness and safety in general. Any discussions of program safety end up being entirely about memory safety.
It's just an endless hoard of comments/blogs/posts/etc of people conflating memory safety with correctness and not even acknowledging - or possibly even knowing - there are other kinds of safety out there.
So the rhetoric being referenced there is largely implicit. Anybody who actually mentions memory safety in specific terms is already ahead of the curve.
I disagree. It's a useful clarification. The OP didn't say "most" but neither did they say "some" or use any language to that effect. A naive reading could even take it as an implicit "all."
I don't think it's quite fair to label it content-agnostic. I mean it sort of technically is, but practically it isn't.
By pushing 'engagement' at all costs, it's essentially inevitable that all the terrible behaviors we see from 'content creators' happen. I agree that they are far from blameless, but when your entire platform is practically globally available to anybody and you only reward unsavory behavior... you're going to get unsavory behavior.
There could be many, many people behaving ethically, and most people may never even see any of them due to the way the platforms are set up.
It's technically content-agnostic in the most technical sense, but practically it's one big system designed to incentivize and surface unethical behavior.
As a result, you get languages like (and mainly) Rust being held up as the paragons of program correctness and safety in general. Any discussions of program safety end up being entirely about memory safety.
It's just an endless hoard of comments/blogs/posts/etc of people conflating memory safety with correctness and not even acknowledging - or possibly even knowing - there are other kinds of safety out there.
So the rhetoric being referenced there is largely implicit. Anybody who actually mentions memory safety in specific terms is already ahead of the curve.