It should be the default understanding that what someone says and writes is their opinion.
Not having that as the default is how we ended up with the terrible popular style "in my opinion it could be argued that for some people it is mostly better if they XYZ, where possible (consult your doctor)".
NB, when I say it's a terrible style, that's my opinion, not a universal truth or peer reviewed fact cited in a published journal.
I'm not so sure. I agree that weasel words can destroy a piece of writing, but a complete lack of them can come off badly too. The main effect of killing the qualifiers in your writing is increasing the confidence in the tone of the piece. Obviously, we all have different levels of confidence in our many different opinions, and if you stop using qualifiers all together, you lose the ability to distinguish between different points on the confidence continuum.
If I write with the same confidence about two opinions I have, one I am vey sure of and one I am doubtful about, then I have failed to communicate well. Furthermore, writing in a way that expresses complete confidence in your opinions can change the tone of the conversation that it sparks. When you qualify your opinions, you signal that you are more willing to discuss that point. Speaking with complete surety can shut down a comment thread or turn it more antagonistic.
I like your point that the author can assign different levels of confidence to different parts of their writing, but the reader shouldn't automatically mistake the confident sections for facts and the unconfident sections for falsehoods, that seems to be conflating two signals into one.
When you qualify your opinions, you signal that you are more willing to discuss that point. Speaking with complete surety can shut down a comment thread or turn it more antagonistic.
Generalities aside, the criticism of the post stands. It's pretty vacuous, offering no new information or insight.
Some writers online actually do have knowledge of Google's or Microsoft's position with respect to Skype, so when they say "Google/Microsoft wants X," they mean something more factual than "I can speculate that Google/Microsoft wants X."
In particular, I've heard from more informed sources that Google passed on Skype and has its reasons, contradicting one of the post's few concrete assertions.
It's not worth reading.
Now if he had predicted this purchase, that would be different.