Eitan.
This has nothing to do with the worldview of Rabbi Shach/Elyashiv; it has to do with the simple practical matter of continuing the transmission of tradition. Making the Talmud accessible is indeed a blessed thing; see Schottenstein and the like. Especially for laymen, who without this would not be learning Talmud at all. You just have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The moment a commentary enters the Talmud without Rashi and without the traditional page layout, over time the learner will be left with no impression of Talmud beyond just another ordinary book. So in the end, with the evolution of these accessibility projects, we’ll get a cute prose paperback sitting on the toilet tank in the bathroom. The reason you can stand before a page of Talmud and study it in great depth over a long period is because you attribute to it importance beyond that of just another holy book. What can you do—that is how it was accepted, and apparently once it was accepted that way, only that way works.
As for his treating the great ones and giants of the world as flesh and blood like us—you could erase almost half the Talmud, aggadic passages that explain behavior in an implausible way, while Steinsaltz’s approach is much simpler and saves countless apologetic explanations. Any behavior that seems improper to us, we’ll explain by saying: yes, they had desire and lust and it slipped out. Obviously, if that were the truth, no one over the generations would have wasted his time investing in studying Talmud, since in its superficial structure you do not see any extraordinary genius in it. Only once you accept that the Talmud is the mouthpiece of the Holy One, blessed be He, through His beloved ones, do you invest, analyze, and discover the infinite depth hidden within it.
To say that those who objected were looking for a monopoly on Torah is a lie and falsehood, for they gave their approval to other commentaries—see Schottenstein.

With God’s help, 22 Av 5780

It is worth noting that in Rabbi Steinsaltz’s editions of the Talmud, the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot were brought on the other side of the Talmud text in square letters and with punctuation—so that his edition contributed not only to making the Talmud accessible, but also to making Rashi and Tosafot accessible.

Following the criticism, the newer editions of Rabbi Steinsaltz’s Talmud photographed the original Vilna edition page on one page, and on the facing page printed the vocalized Talmud text with Rabbi Steinsaltz’s commentary. They were forced to give up the aid to learning Rashi and Tosafot that came from the square letters and punctuation.

With every accessible explanatory edition, there is a danger that the learner will grow accustomed to the comfortable commentary and have difficulty moving on to the next stage: studying the books of the commentators and halakhic decisors in their original form, in Rashi script and without punctuation. Even in the Schottenstein edition, with its clear commentary and enlightening notes, there is the risk that the learner will be satisfied with that and forgo close study of the original.

It seems to me that, at the end of the day, the accessibility that makes the initial learning easier allows one to reduce the time devoted to breadth study, while increasing the time devoted to analytical study, in which by its very nature one must open the primary sources.

Best regards, Shatz

I was referring to what Rabbi Michael Abraham wrote—that they replaced the commentary in place of Rashi.

Paragraph 3, line 1:
… the danger that the learner will grow accustomed …