A few unsubstantiated bullet points do not qualify as proof. I’m not gonna bother responding to each point because they’re quite silly and I’m also not the most qualified person to talk about Linux security (which is why I defer to experts such as security researchers and security-focused distro maintainers who unanimously agree X11 must be swapped for Wayland) but this seems like some pretty dangerous misinformation.
Modern sandboxing doesn’t require Wayland: Linux already has robust container and namespace isolation technologies
… Seriously? The author is demonstrating they’re trying to refute an issue without even understanding what the issue is:
Desktop users need functionality over isolation: Most desktop users run trusted applications and need them to work together
This implies X11 isn’t as secure in order to preserve “functionality”. So one second X11 is more secure and therefore better than Wayland but the next it’s more lax and that’s actually a good thing! Which is it?