Notice that their examples end in 1983 (and include bad comparisons like frozen food which decays because the freezer warms and cools allowing ice particles to grow shrink and grow elsewhere). The basic arguments against cryogenics, available in eg. the science fiction of the 1960s and 1970s, have always been that we don't know if frozen bodies could ever be revived, the resources to freeze someone could be spent giving happiness to live people, we don't know what purpose the future would have for people from the Coal Era, and that coming back alone in an alien world would not be a great experience; I guess the fact that many of the companies are run by crooks, quacks, or doofuses is another more specific argument.
Especially in the case "we don't know if or how a corpsicle could be revived" I don't think those basic arguments have changed. It seems a lot like chiropractic or homeopathy or other medicine that we know does not work but some people pay for.
