Perhaps HN is full of people with high digital literacy, relatively high reasoning ability etc. People like this can benefit from the service.
The article's core point is that Hims uses unethical marketing. Maybe the HN crowd is privileged: people here may be able to resist marketing.
The article's unstated point is that many people who use Hims would be better off not using it.
HN people tend to be wealthy tech workers. I'm not sure how many people here know about the brutal conditions outside their cozy tech bubble.
There are tens of millions of Americans with low cognitive ability, low digital literacy, high susceptibility to advertising, high stress, poor health, and demeaning jobs - all at the same time.
Many of these unfortunate people spend pretty much their whole lives bouncing around from scam to scam. At age 15 they get exploited by an older boyfriend. At age 26 they get exploited by a for-profit college.
Then at age 45 they get exploited by unethical pharma companies. Like Hims.
The healthcare industry spends a lot of time dealing with this population. Many of these people tend to be "frequent flyers" of government-run programs. People who work in hospitals understand these unfortunate people intimately. When those hospital workers make laws, they spend a lot of time thinking about how to protect these people. Then Hims come along and targets them specifically.
The article's point is that Hims exploits vulnerable people. And I agree.