Bundling a bunch of bad sounding things up and pretending they are interrelated is intellectually dishonest and counter productive to anyone who takes the time to read the article.
Care to give an example for the uninitiated?
Centralised exchanges can't freeze the exchange of Bitcoin. They themselves can decide that THEY won't accept money from certain individuals (Centralised exchanges are required to complete KYC for users), but they have no power to stop UTXOs being spent on the network. The only way UTXOs can be prohibited from being spent is via consensus between node operators.
This is just one example of many points where the author decides to fuse centralised services which interact with the decentralised network with the network itself.
This is the basis for mixing services which do this at scale.
The fact is that the author is using intellectually dishonest arguments to try and convey something as the truth, which is not true.
The above also doesn't take in to consideration any L2 or Taproot transactions that provide even easier ways to mitigate Government overreach.
It is like you haven't read the preceding and the following paragraphs.
Author was simply relying his/her experience in discussing with crypto supporters. In the paragraph you quoted the response of crypto supporters is that exchanges have no power. In the following paragraph the response of crypto supporters is that exchanges have the power.