Your comment sheds some light on it, personally I still don't see the value of the article but I do see the sentiment for upvoting it. I merely thought there was some finer point I didn't get and wanted to understand it.
There's a secondary way in which this is an interesting phenomenon, too: the story is being picked up by other media outlets because it resonates with many people. I caught part of an interview with the reporter on CBC radio last night. While they did talk explicitly about the meta aspect (what prompted you to write it, what were you trying to achieve, how do you think the internet is affecting people), they also had the sense to devote most of the piece to Neil Smith. What the reporter figured out is that by focusing on the details of this individual, he could make a general point more powerfully than by stating it in general. That excites my curiosity.
Edit: There are two common responses to nasty online comments: argue with them or ignore them. Most people figure out after a while that arguing just feeds the trolls, so ignoring is better. But this guy came up with an innovative way to respond: he elevated the thing that they belittled; he picked it up and polished it off and showed that it was beautiful. He found a way to give beauty for ashes. That's just not very common.
I guess that's what your seeing from the upvotes.