It's not a mistake or bad practice at all. I really don't understand the hate for passive voice in style guides (particularly American ones, IME). It's like saying "palm muting is the first sin of guitar playing". No, it's a valid aesthetic choice that everyone will have a different subjective opinion on in different contexts. There are also many contexts when the subject of the verb is of little importance, so passive voice is the more obvious choice
The one exception is writing where accessibility is key. Apparently there is objective evidence that EAL and lower-ability native speakers may find it confusing to parse, but if you're instead writing "to entertain" (in a very broad sense), or for a high-ability audience, this likely is not relevant
The other justifications like "active voice strikes the object" just sound like standard bad linguistics and getting hung up on the name, rather than any valid critique
As for "it's used to shirk responsibility" ("mistakes were made") - that's plenty easy to do in active voice ("experts say x"). Shiftiness is a function of semantic content (or lack thereof) not grammar, and people generally aren't stupid enough to not notice you dodging just because you did it in passive
The one exception is writing where accessibility is key. Apparently there is objective evidence that EAL and lower-ability native speakers may find it confusing to parse, but if you're instead writing "to entertain" (in a very broad sense), or for a high-ability audience, this likely is not relevant
The other justifications like "active voice strikes the object" just sound like standard bad linguistics and getting hung up on the name, rather than any valid critique
As for "it's used to shirk responsibility" ("mistakes were made") - that's plenty easy to do in active voice ("experts say x"). Shiftiness is a function of semantic content (or lack thereof) not grammar, and people generally aren't stupid enough to not notice you dodging just because you did it in passive