The author argues that the shadow DOM is often overhyped and can introduce more problems than it solves. They respond to common defenses of shadow DOM, starting with the claim that global styles can break components. The author counters that this is primarily an issue of poorly written CSS. They suggest that developers can avoid conflicts with better naming conventions and customizable classes, which were already established practices before shadow DOM became popular. Another point raised is the notion that shadow DOM components are easier to style. The author contends that while parts and CSS variables can allow for some customization, they place additional burdens on developers. Instead of seamlessly integrating with existing site styles, developers must now specify styles for each component part. The author believes that letting developers access the entire component's internals would simplify customization and better accommodate unforeseen use cases. Concerns about the internal structure of components breaking when updated are dismissed by the author, who argues that semantic versioning allows for clear communication of changes. They emphasize that developers should engage with HTML as it's fundamental to web development. The claim that shadow DOM enhances performance is challenged, as the author sees this as a symptom of deeper architectural issues rather than a solution. While acknowledging that shadow DOM has its uses—like replacing iframes—they ultimately view it as an anti-pattern that shouldn’t be applied universally.