I reckon the breadth and depth of what we (well most of us) now define as "Photography" as increased many times over.
This is one of the main issues: some folk, such as Donald, the ex-Press Photographer, want to keep the definition of "Photography" confined to very strict rules and procedures, all the time and for every "image".
Others choose to be more flexible and, on the spectrum of definitions move towards the middle ground and some take an anything goes extreme approach.
I think the important point for all is to clearly articulate our definition, when we are discussing: my view is Photography has a place on the Art Spectrum, and as such, in general terms, if a camera or like device is involved, then the end result should be termed a "photograph".
Additionally, I think: 'artist's intent'; 'purpose'; 'client'; 'end use'; are all important aspects to consider and will (should) result in differing definitions of what is acceptable, or not.
For example, I read Tyler's commentary not as one of being inflexible: rather that he articulated his Artist's Intent clearly and because of his (passionate) stance on Artist's Intent, he is justified in not accepting others' definitions.
I have found it always interesting to discuss this topic under the banner of where folk place "Photography" on the Spectrum of Art. I have found folk that have a view such as Tyler's prefer water tight definitions along that spectrum, also folk like Donald, the ex Press guy, tend to be technical folk and as such prefer water tight rules, not necessarily placing "photography" on the Spectrum of Art, at all. The same result, different pathways.
Maybe Tyler likes Scotch Whisky too - so we might all agree on that.
WW