Tesla gets clicks. Apart from that though, probably because Elon has been marketing them as having FSD soon for nearly a decade, plus numerous claims that autopilot is already safer than humans. Sure, not every Tesla has that but most people are more ignorant than you might think. The number of people I've met who think a Tesla can actually drive you hundreds of miles while you sleep in the back is alarming.

same reason why amazon warehouse working conditions get so much more media attention compared to everywhere else

is there any other company with a similar technology (activated and working instead of the driving having any control) with a similar number of miles, and if so, what are their accident and death rates when their technology is enabled?

IIUC MB and other manufacturers have fairly sophisticated self-driving packages now but I don't know how they compare to Tesla, in terms of technology or marketing or user expectation.

My guess is: this is an easy article because it gets clicks because it feeds into a bunch of people existing assumptions about self-driving, and also Musk gets a lot of clicks too. I haven't seen many (any?) articles that actually attempt to interpret all the available data about self-driving car accidents in the US and draw any reasonable conclusions, in a good-faith way (rather than promoting a pre-existing agenda or going to cheap clicks).

Note that I'm mainly interested in the situation of accidents that occur during full hands-off automated driving where the system had not started notifying the user to pay attention and the weather and road conditions are not adverse. Having accurate estimates of accident and death frequencies that could be used to compare autonomous systems confidently would be great.

Schadenfreude, probably. No other car manufacturer encourages people to take their hands off the wheel, light a blunt, and watch the world burn (nb: egregious poetic license).