This is only the most instrumental criticism. It focuses on strategy. Notice that both it and the article provide no convincing evidence so as to judge either way, including when citing historical anecdotes. This is conjecture covered over by rhetoric -- on both sides of the issue.
The (much) more powerful criticisms can be grouped into the following:
Moral criticism -- the antifa actions discussed in the article are themselves abusive and reckless.
Democratic criticism -- the antifa actions discussed in the article are undemocratic (cf. "Neoliberal Radicals" for the communitarian and civic republican sense of "democratic" involved in this criticism).
Historical criticism -- the use of "fascism" in the article and frequently in antifa press -- e.g., Lennard's -- is not historically accurate. #MAGA, for instance, is not para-military.
Aesthetic criticism -- the appearance of resistance and the view of the way that appearance is perceived -e.g., through "disruption," "attention gathering," "viral social media transmission," etc. -- are thin and superficial; they foreclose or deflect from more creative responses.
Epistemological criticism -- the claims made by antifa advocates in this article and many others are poorly reasoned, lacking in convincing evidential claims, and convenient conjectures. So here, too:
There is no clear evidence of "broad support" (the term is vague and the evidence given is anecdotal and piecemeal with no attempt to figure out how to gather evidence for the claim). But even if everyone but one person jumped on the bandwagon, this wouldn't affect the other criticisms, which aren't about what people will want to do when they are outraged and scared, but about what we ought to do.
Just some push-back to the "push back" in this slam pit.