Believe it or not, but the engineers over there did probably actually think about this. Starlink isn't competing with other providers that are at higher orbits such as Geostationary. They are deliberately placed lower for lower cost and transmission delay. When going from LEO to GEO, the limits of the speed of light make a tangible difference in latency between the satellite and the ground. In addition, the orders of magnitude lower cost to deliver to the lower orbit allows them to send many many more satellites, which increases throughout enough to make satellite internet actually usable for high bandwidth tasks.
Individual Starlink satellites are not permanent. You can argue whether it makes sense to constantly have to replace satellites in order to get more speed and lower latency, but that has nothing at all to do with some sort of engineering mistake. Comparing the longevity of Starlink satellites to satellite television, GPS, ISS, etc. is like comparing fuel mileage between a Prius and the Saturn V Crawler-transporter. They are in no means competing on this factor.
Because it's a bogus story. It's like saying that the leaves fell from a tree or water evaporated from a lake. The satellites are deorbiting because that's what they are designed to do, rather than hanging around as space trash for hundreds of years.
Does one person saying that they voted for change in the government make you incredibly, deeply sad? Just one vote in millions after all. Little things can collectively add up to something big.
Don't forget that a few decades ago they were the same as everyone else, if not below average in terms of having a city designed for humans. It goes to show how effective consistent public policy is for changes like this.
Yet another reason not to use that stuff, as if we needed more