Are you suggesting that Bitcoin's security hinges on people's good faith (to not deploy "hundreds of nodes with multiple amazon Ec2 instances without users actively securing them and using them"?!
No. He suggests that a naive attack that succeeds to only create a majority in the least capital intensive of the three areas (nodes, mining, capital/economic majority) in isolation is doomed to fail -- due to a reaction of the rest of the network out of pure self-interest.
So how should have the network reacted to the boldface above, in its self-interest? Did it do so?
If yes, why was boldface dangerous?
If not, why not?