Reading through that site, I see some things that... aged poorly. Like https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/11/21/choices-headaches/ which tells you to avoid giving users choices, which is hiw you get problems like what's happened to some Linux desktops that keep hiding useful functionality. Or https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/09/06/its-not-just-usabi... which promotes the idea of not giving feedback to abusive users, which is an ancestor of the Kafkaesque policies where Youtube or Facebook or Google Play bans you with no explanation of what you did wrong and no way to appeal.
I don’t agree with your examples. In the first one, he describes a specific problem, and I agree with his description and proposed sketched solution. I see no explicit connection with the later problems of modern programs removing options. In the second article, he describes a method for fighting spam, not abusive users, and it was a reasonable idea in 2004. And I seem to recall that even this very forum currently uses that method, so it must still be very effective, which in turn points to Joel being correct. The negative aspects you describe I feel lies more with the centralized monolithic nature of those actors. Of course, a tool can be used badly, but I’m not sure the article has aged that badly.
