As far as I know, the star link sattelites are much less reflective now. The images that show them close together are all from right after launch and not indicative of their apparent brightness once they reach their desired spots in the sky.
At that point it is a trade off between the connectivity options for people in rural areas and how much hassle they have to go through in order to get clean astro images during twilight. With the internet gaining ever more importance, providing service through space rather than physical connections on the ground seems to be a bigger service to the people to me. After all, the established ISPs and governments have already proven their lack of commitment to driving speeds forward for certain areas around the world.
I think the articles that proclaim SpaceX is ruining the night sky belong to the same kind of 'journalism' that continues to push the outrage and recall rumors regarding the overheating issues.
It's not like they aren't doing as much as they can to reduce the issue.
Well, I'm a huge SpaceX fan and not anti space, in fact quite the opposite. I don't agree though that people getting internet anywhere and everywhere is so great, or should take precedence over anything else. Cellular is already going to fill in even in rural areas when 5G matures.
I am definitely not of the philosophy that growth and "progress" is always for the better or that our human obsession with technology is always good. Some places should lack signal. Some experiences should stay natural. I feel the night sky is one of them. One already cannot see the night sky in most urban areas, including about half of the US and most of Europe because people are afraid of the dark and we blast orange and blue light into the night sky in cheap omni directional bulbs.
You have tied our observation about satellites to Starlink and articles you have read, but I am going by personal experience, not media or hype on that particular constellation to form an opinion. Go to any dark sky now, and you can already almost always be following a satellite or two at once. No, this is not just after launch either. Almost every astro photo I take has a satellite in it. Spacecraft can only be made a certain amount non reflective since the colors and coatings that can be applied must be compatible with the thermal design of the spacecraft. Most spacecraft (satellites) remove heat through black body radiation and heat conduction from one part of the craft to another, since there is no convection in space. This often is done with coatings/colors so there is only so much that can be done for spacecraft that cannot heat pipe the hot spots around to equilibrium and must get rid of heat.
Also note, there are presently less than 1000 SpaceX sats up, but they have approval for 12000, and want to launch 40000. SpaceX isn't the half of what is coming either. I'm aware of serious proposals for huge constellations upwards of 3000 count per, by several other companies. Do you want a night sky with dozens upon dozens of satellites in view at any time? I don't. This is also a huge headache for all types of astronomy and going to get very messy and dangerous for other space operations eventually. It is becoming a waste dump up there. The average satellite lasts 5-7 years, and extended duty is usually 15, then they die and burn up or float.
More is not always better, and when we lose the fundamental connection to and experience of our earth and sky so we can build more stuff, and have more internet and other distraction, I don't see that as any kind of win. Humanity and business or technological "progress" is not always what it seems. There needs to be sustainable balance.
As to relating the opinions about night sky preservation to the overheating issue, I won't even go there. There are completely unrelated. I get your point about hype, but lets not make our individual opinions into 'facts' or bludgeon each other with them, lets just say we disagree that large constellations packing the night sky is going to be great.