Honestly I see "steelmanning" as an emergent property of a completely broken discourse in the first place. The whole concept derives from the idea that we need specific terminology for when we're going to actually discuss things in a reasonable manner. It's basically a response to a group of public intellectuals who have emerged on the internet that spend more time building their brand and dunking on their opponents within their own echo chamber than actually trying to persuade people. And these public intellectuals are so well-read that they reinvented devils-advocate in their own bubble. It also stems from a kind of silly idea that the things we disagree over boil down to finding logical errors in each others positions, rather than emerging from deep-rooted differences in values.

In the example in the article there is just a fundamental difference in how those people see the world. One person thinks that by and large people are free to openly disagree with the consensus and would do so if they wanted to, and the other person thinks that disagreeing with the public consensus on controversial topics has such a high price that people choose not to do it. Depending on your experience in the world either of those two views can be right. In fact, you can pull examples on both sides of this - where contrarians have successfully changed the consensus and are celebrated for it, or have spoken out and been stigmatized for it. These opposing positions stem from such a deep difference in world views it's useless to talk about Ivemectin. So the issue here isn't steelmanning, it's that you're not actually discussing the point of contention.