I agree that it's somewhat technically more secure in that it prevents a wide array of attack vectors.
Despite of that my point is that, for the vast majority of visitors, the solution ends up being less secure due to imperfect information; If you access a service over HTTP you can accurately asses the (lack of) security and, based on an informed assessment of the risks, decide wether you want to proceed.
If you access a site over a seemingly secure connection that is terminated prior to reaching the origin, then you most likely don't have the necessary information to assess the security and associated risks relative to what you're doing: Your browser is telling you that you're at the right domain and that the connection is secure with modern cryptography (if the site is using CloudFlare). However that's not the entire story.
The browser is not telling you that the secure connection is terminated at the CloudFlare edge. This leaves it to the CloudFlare-protected site to inform the visitor that the connection is only secure some of the way in order for the visitor to make an accurate assessment of the connection's security.
I don't think most CF customers who pick "Flexible SSL" are thoroughly and accurately informing visitors of these nuances (and even if they are an MITM can modify it). That's why I absolutely do not think it's better than HTTP -- exactly because of the problems outlined in this article.
In this case I'd argue that, from the perspective of a TBP visitor, "Flexible SSL" improves security on less relevant vectors while significantly decreasing security on the vectors that matter. The coffee shop owner probably doesn't care that much about the IP rights of H/Bollywood, but this is the attack vector that Flexible SSL helps mitigate. The government does however care about such rights and CloudFlare's ISP was forced/willing to help them. CFs solution did nothing to mitigate this vector.
Now I'm not saying this is all CloudFlare fault, but I do think they share a part of the responsibility. TBP's recklessness has allowed millions of people around the world to access and use their site under the false assumption that they were protected. What I don't get is why CloudFlare has any interest in enabling such behavior. They know full well the risks associated with this solution and even admit it's inferiority compared to commando-style unencrypted HTTP. It also decreases my trust in other CloudFlare-protected sites - for all I know, as a visitor, the site may or may not be using Flexible (or perhaps just "Broken") SSL.
My suggestion is simply that they use their knowledge to provide a better service to their customers and their visitors. That probably means discontinuing this product - or clarify why the don't think that's necessary.