I did find it confusing at first, though. Maybe it could have used a disclaimer, or maybe the author should have chosen different terms (maybe "producer" instead of "getter" and "consumer" instead of "setter"?). I also find it unintuitive to call console.log a "setter", and "consumer" feels better to me.
It took a bit of adjusting, but local terminology is a lot more readable than if everybody tried to use universally-unambiguous language.
[It's a term established in the language specification.]
I'd say JS getters/setters are syntactic sugar for the OOP concept the author is talking about.
[Edit] Correction: should have been, at least since ECMA-262 5th Ed.
That all said, within the model being established by the author, everything does make sense, eventually, and the difference between IO output functions and setters, for the sake of the abstractions that the author builds, is non-existent.