The complexity that this article talks about was all built to solve a problem and in a lot of cases it does solve that problem. The problem might not exist for the author and a particular user and that is what makes the tech hard for them.
I cannot imagine a world without downloads, I spent a lot of time in my younger days in parts of the world where finding a gaming system, lets alone a cartridge/CD was a nightmare. I have spent hours/days/weeks looking for games. Digital downloads have virtually eliminated that problem no matter where I am.
The whole social media complexity is about how to make money off people especially when they potentially cannot afford/want to pay for a service(plus other problems like how to keep up with shareholders that expect to see a business constantly grow while being risk averse). It solves that problem with ads and a whole bunch of complexity to increase revenue. Making the app complicated for users but solving the revenue problem.
I used to be a big PGAdmin fan for Postgres management. But then they rewrote the app as a web app and I stopped using it because it was completely broken for me. But it was done to solve a problem with tech debt.
It is very easy to see in hindsight what went wrong, but at the point the solutions were created it is probably the best solution possible with the give constraints. I have seen code that was a horrible mess and wondered what the devs were thinking but then I have written horrible code too, but it was the best I could do at that point with the information I had then. I did not actively set out to write bad code and at that point I just solved the problem. But in hindsight it was horrible code.
This is such a complex topic and I do not think it is a case of "things were good in the old days, now they are bad". It is more a case of, ok today we have this information how do we fix X. But then that might lead to unknown complexity down the road. Plus there is the whole needing to cater to the needs of different people with very varied interests and often contradictory needs.