Gravity is a "force" exactly the same way that centrifugal force is a "force". If you think that a "force" that arises from coordinate system transformations is a "fictional force" or some other expression of "not a force", that's fine. It's just word meanings. There's no reason to get upset about someone having a different concept of the word force.
As long as everybody agrees that if you were to transform to a different coordinate system the force would disappear everybody is agreeing on the important bits. Who cares if you say something is or is not a force if you understand the underlying equations?
No one got upset. As I believe the linked article pointed out, the centrifugal force is not a force either. It's about a little more than word meanings. If something doesn't fit the physical definition of force it should not be characterized as a physical force. That's all.
To use a relevant analogy, a lot is made by REers about whether Flat Earth Theory deserves to be called a theory, since it doesn't fit the scientific definition of the word. They may or may not have a point (certainly FET is rarely characterized as a scientific theory even by believers, as it is considered zetetic in nature), but certainly there are less technical definitions of the word that do fit FET. Is that alone good enough to characterize it as a theory, or should we be more stringent with the definition?
I feel that for something like this if you are not using the technical definition you should make that explicit, otherwise it risks being misleading. And it is misleading to characterize gravity as a force, unless you are clear that you aren't using the technical physical definition of the word. The problem? Most people who characterize it as a force believe that they are technically right! I see no reason not to use it as an opportunity to give them a little bit of education.