If anything that article is an interesting reminder on how different people can find different things in the same genre, and media within that genre. The writer's emphasis on the social struggle of the downtrodden, for example, doesn't align with my own focus on the dehumanizing and culture-warping influence of unchecked power and the application of mechanical/systematized thinking to wider civilization. While exploring how the punks, the outcasts and the disenfranchised come to terms with a future that treats them entirely as commodities and consumers and subvert it is great and makes for the best stories (and I assume videogames), I'm personally more excited by the redefinition of humanity, the grotesque distortion of human wants and needs and the near-animus rampant capitalism is given by the complete breakdown of morality.
Which is a lot of pseudo-intellectual guff to say that it's handy to refocus sometimes and realize that there's lots of ways to approach even something like a science fiction genre.
As for how this article applies to Armageddon - seems pretty obvious from above but first off, hey - guess maybe different parts of the setting appeal to different people. Let's hit the feel-good 'broad church' box right out of the gates.
Next, I suppose a very direct application of the article could be - a lot of the cyberpunk genre's power comes from following those in the setting who are discarded by the prevalent systems, yet bend or 'hack' their meager lot to find their own power. City elves are a comparison that immediately comes to mind - they're not just tall humans with pointy ears - they're a different species with a perspective on the world that puts them at odds with the totalitarian society they exploit to survive. They hack, exploit and work against the unflinching, unyielding power that surrounds them every day - often being crushed into nothing - sometimes managing to come out on top.
Another classic trope that comes to mind while I'm riffing with the c-elf line of thinking - the 'tools of the corporations'. In Arm's case these are often the gemmers - detestable, disposable, often drawn into the clutches of a Templar's attention by misfortune or a desire to rise from the muck. They do their master's dirty work and will never receive praise or recognition for it.
Moving on, I think the article is also applicable to Armageddon in the sense that it speaks to a particular mindset that runs through the 'low-class' protagonists of what the author deems 'good' cyberpunk. The 'punk' in cyberpunk is counter-authority, anti-hero, a philosophy set against the monolithic corporations and the controlled society that they rule over. They're not -good- at all, Case in Neuromancer is an asshole, for example. They are just difficult, flawed characters who refuse to be cast as heroes or villains - who fail, fuck up and struggle with their flaws (real or impressed upon them by the societies they exist in) and don't necessarily get what they want in the end.
What does this look like in Armageddon? I'm going to cheat and say I think it will be different for everyone. Personally for me it means PCs with personalities that let me, as a player, act in ways that nurture the plots around me. If I'm a militia soldier, I'll have my PC take the bribe, or avoid certain patrol routes. If I'm a merchant I'll decide it's not worth my safety to report dodgy dealings my peers are doing.