Is this really the only evidence provided to support the claim?
Before writing this article, I have experimented with what’s good and what’s bad for my eyes. Reading a black web-safe font on white background made my eyes tired, not sore, after 4 hours. Reading black anti-aliased text in non-web-safe font of the same size, also on white background, on the same screen, same topic, same line lengths and interline spacing made my eyes tired in 8 minutes, made me feeling dizzy in 42 minutes, my eyes became sore in 1 hour and 3 minutes, and the speed of reading was about 20% slower. Reading the same text with anti-aliasing switched off made my eyes tired in 2 hours, but the speed of reading was nearly 70% slower!
That’s all this article offers. Besides, that anecdote, there’s an actual study Microsoft did finding ClearType (their anti-aliased font feature) improved reading speed without increasing fatigue. I can’t immediately find a copy of it online, but one of the authors (Slattery) summarized in the academic anthology “Digital Fonts and Reading” by saying:
Slattery and Rayner  included an analysis of blink rate in their examination of the ClearType anti-aliasing used by Microsoft. They showed that the benefits of anti-aliasing, in terms of reading rate, were not accompanied by any increase in eye fatigue, as measured by blink rate.
This article needs actual evidence before writing a scaremongering headline and recommendations that are the exact opposite of best known practice.
Terrible, click-bait title. It seems to make the case that anti-aliased fonts are annoying, but permanent eye damage that can be attributed to them seems unlikely.
It should be noted that this article is originally from 2012. Displays have improved a fair bit between now and then, so I suspect that most of this person’s claims are dated at best.
I was wondering if this is even an issue with something like a retina display… Anyone know?