Yes, but the kernel IS monolithic. No one is denying that. The same could be said about libc. But the GNU tools (coreutils) are a bit different since they are independent and have cleanly defined interfaces. You can easily pick the ones you like and use alternate implementations of others (busybox for example).
Could it be so simple that Poettering simply get a kick from pissing people off. From the way he argues it defenitely seems like it. He mentions that people don't find systemd "unix-like" and instead of addressing the actual critique he makes up his own definition of "unix-like" which he surely knows is different from what anybody else means. Same as for coming up with his own definition of the word modular.
Can he really believe this political rhetoric is fooling anyone? Anyone who cares about an init system, that is. I find it more likely he is actively trying to piss people off. Because if he let the code speak for itself and was honest about it, it's really not that bad.
Linux was has been faced with the same critique for not being modular. It has lead to honest and interesting discussions about microkernel vs monolithic design. Torvalds would never enter such discussions saying Linux actually has the most pure microkernel design of any OS and end the discussion by pulling a new definition of every established term out his ass.
Instead of criticizing Torvalds for being bad at handling people Poettering could learn a few things. If he simply admitted that systemd is a big monolithic beast, just like the Linux kernel, the matter could at least be discussed (at a technical level). If that had been what he wanted...
I'm sure this "invention" will correctly attribute Snow White to Brothers Grimm and not Disney. Right?
I guess that's why Disney prevents Google from implementing the algorithm by patenting it.
There was a similar case in Sweden which highlighted many of the problems with current child pornography laws. It was a manga translator who was accused but was finally declared not guilty in the final instance (högsta domstolen). The picture in question depicted a topless (relatively realistic looking) manga girl standing alone on a field.
So what is child pornography exactly?
1) It depicts a child. A child is someone, real or fictional, under 18. This includes an adult pretending to be a child (also called age play). And also an adult looking like a child (willingly or not), for example by dressing in childish clothes. One tool to decide if someone looks like a child is the Tanner scale (which was used in court).
2) It is pornographic. This is of course very subjective and defined as what is commonly perceived as pornographic. An obvious problem with this definition is that something needs to contains adults (or at least teens) to be commonly perceived as pornographic to begin with. So one has to imagine to be a paedophile in order to make the decision. Which is only unnecessary sexualisation of children (for example pictures children playing on a beach becomes commonly perceived as pornographic).
The laws tend to get more and more inclusive to include more and more as child pornography. And no one wants to pull the breaks since it will get them accused of liking child pornography and being pedophiles themselves (an open goal for political opponents). While in reality the real child pornography (with real children being real victims) simply gets dwarfed by the vast amount on cartoons and teens taking pictures of themselves. Which makes it difficult for the police to legally focus their resources.
These laws are expansions of laws against indecent behavior. You are not allowed to have sex in public -> you not allowed to publicly display pictures of people having sex, or other pornographic images -> some pornographic images you are not allowed to distribute -> some pornographic images you are not allowed to possess.
It would make much more sense to instead expand the laws of sexual assault, to forbid images of those. There is not much point in determining of someone may find them pornographic or not (from a legal perspective).
One key question here is of course what the relationship is between child pornography and pedophiles committing sexual assaults. One possibility is that the pornography inspires pedophiles to commit more sexual assaults. Another is that the pornography keeps the pedophiles occupied so they commit less sexual assaults. The studies made on serial offenders point to the conclusion that pornography lessens the risk of repeated offenses. But it's uncertain if this is also true for the first offense (which isn't as easy to study for obvious reasons).