Your anecdotes don't contradict what I said - your client reviewed your commits and requested further changes for actual compliance before acceptance. The grandparent post implied that you paid the freelancer, they disappeared off the face of the earth, and only then the client would realize compliance issues. That has never been how it works in my experience, and clearly not in yours either.
About the contract:
The framework contract/service agreement I work with is about 6 pages of actual text. It's my own text, it has already been reviewed thoroughly (by two sets of lawyers and several accountants specialized in UK contracting), so in case of new agreements it's usually only a few amendments that need review.
Part of the reason it's so long is because of the UK's IR35 regulation - the way I work makes it very important that my contracts are iron-clad in case of a review. Another reason is that I do quite a bit of work for US multinationals in software that has to achieve FDA approval. I'm sure that for a lot of work you could get away with less. I think that's because US companies are more aware of the damage potential of legal issues more so than in other countries. One of the big ones I work with has been involved in IP/patent battles and critical subcontractors declaring bankruptcy unexpectedly in the middle of a project - they needed me to cover those eventualities.
To avoid the issues of having to review long contracts and the cost of review, I use my own framework agreement for clients. If a client wants to use their contract that's fine, but they get a notice that the cost of having to review their contract will be added to the cost of my work.
Though I guess that in all of the above we're not talking about "freelancing" as in the article - a $150 piece of work wouldn't open anyone up to any great liability (one of my contract clauses stipulates that liability can never be more than the amount paid for the work).