I think, contra the article, that Einstein can turn out to be wrong, albeit in the sense that the explanation
can be incorrect, even as it produces significantly more accurate results than Newton does. What if, say, the equivalence principle is false, but there are numerous phenomena that happen to follow the prediction anyhow (say, that photons respond to gravity for reasons other than 'spacetime curvature').
Some anti-science folks to this day use the 'ever-changing face of science' as a weakness, when that's its best strength and that even our worst theories have explanatory power that's closer to the real deal.
One thing I did like about the article is the focus on experimental evidence (emphasis mine):
To begin with, Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work. Einstein’s theory didn’t supplant Newton’s until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn’t agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.
That really is the case, and quite frankly, it will be the case for a lot of cosmological issues, too, which was why the James Webb affair saddened me so much.
It's also how string theory and even supersymmetry in general are on a bit of thin ground these days, because we tentatively have the Higgs, but not a selectron nor squark nor sproton in sight.