IMO that's an overly reductive take, which is very common for tools in this space, but (I think) needs to be addressed so people stop repeating it.
It reduces what "most orgs" are (as if 80% of businesses are the same, or solve the same problems, or have the same challenges, or use the same approaches, or have the same customers, have the same staff or expertise, budgets, timelines, etc, etc, etc.). Clearly there is no such thing as "most orgs", as there are many different kinds of businesses and how they approach solving problems varies from business to business. Their use of technology to solve problems also can't be easily reduced; the way the business chooses to solve problems doesn't necessarily dictate what technology they should use.
It correlates the need for complexity with whether an organization is in some 20% minority of organizations, as if only a minority of orgs should or shouldn't use a complex tool.
It reduces a given tool down to "complex or not", as if complexity is the only consideration of whether to use a tool or not. There may be many different reasons to use a tool regardless of whether it's complex.
It assumes that a given tool has some inherent complexity that isn't comparable to other tools. Other tools might have less inherent complexity, but their lack of complexity may then create new problems that have to be solved, which just moves the complexity from the tool to a bunch of other places.
Overall, it correlates the way you solve problems, with how complex a tool is, with whether your organization is of one of two large generic groups. This is such a sweeping conclusion that it would be impossible to prove or demonstrate.
Based on your comment about them "using Fargate" instead, I'm assuming what you're actually saying is you think people should be using a managed product which uses containerization [and possibly k8s], rather than managing a complex technology themselves. I agree. But that doesn't mean we can generalize about who should be using what and when.