Feels to me like that is addressed by the very first sentence in the article:

> We influence others every day, whether we intend to or not.

And then it’s expanded as it continues.

> Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree.

Yes, to a degree. Seems to me the author is attempting to be pragmatic and not let excessive pedantry cloud the larger point. A friend trying to convince you to stop smoking because they want you to live healthier for longer may be technically manipulating you, but that’s not a useful definition and realistically no one would colloquially consider it to be the case. Whenever you find yourself dismissing an argument because a word can be applied universally, instead steelman the author’s argument by trying to understand the definition they are working with.

When people say or hear "manipulation", it usually implies deception: someone is tricking someone else into a position that's against the former's goals and interests.

It's possible to communicate without manipulating if all you aspire to do is describe reality as you see it, and make an effort to separate your own aesthetic judgements from mere observations of what exists.

People may change their actions without changing their goals when their model of reality becomes more accurate.

To manipulate is to control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously. It implies that you're getting someone to do something they wouldn't if they were aware of what was going on.

The way I read manipulation is that someone is handling (manus: latin for 'hands') someone merely as a tool, bending and pushing and whatnot, just as a mere means to an end, without big regard for the tool, in an egotistical way. Objectifying the other, to some extent.

I think a distinction based on honest vs dishonest communication can be made