You're focusing on the first consequence in that sentance ("that hinder our ability to use technical systems") and indeed the paper suggests what you describe.

You're focusing on the first consequence in that sentance ("that hinder our ability to use technical systems") and indeed the paper suggests what you describe. However, the second part ("and clouds the critique of technological developments") seems well supported by the paper. In their 'discussion' section, they even state This need for intelligibility of the inner workings of the technology, rather than simply keeping it invisible, echoes Chalmers et al.’s work on “seamful design” [4] which is exactly what the blog post is advocating.