I think the point Cloned is making (sorry to try to speak for you, correct me if i'm wrong!) is that in the past futurists imagined entire systemic changes to the way we live, and worked out detailed ideas for how the future might look and feel, and then these sorts of predictions and ideas were (somewhat) widely discussed.
In the modern era of futurism you tend to get more singular and short term predictions (Gadget X will be Y times better by year Z, Gadget A will be available by year B etc.) and no one seems to hold out much hope (or is willing to make any predictions) for any sort of radically improved or different future societal structure. Those that do discuss paradigm shifts in society haven't carefully thought out how the new society will improve on what we have, but instead (as in the example) can be boiled down to "The future should totally be better for like, everyone in the future"
I think part of the issue here is that the older people the article author quotes as futurists are in fact hard sci-fi authors (And Buckminster fuller who is: "American architect, systems theorist, author, designer, inventor, and futurist who published more than 30 books"), and a lot of the more recent futurists are not. If you're writing a novel, you'll spend years thinking about the world you're building if your writing a futurism blog, you're not going to go into that kind of depth.
(The article author then goes on a rant where he more or less claims that all successful futurist predictions are too easy and so don't count and all failed futurist predictions are not errors by the individual futurist, but instead proof the whole field is flawed his example was basically "a futurist predicted that the US mail would be able to offer email, and was wrong because they decided not to, because they couldn't figure out how to make money off it, and the fact that email replaced a huge amount of letter traffic at around the same time was irrelevant")
I would say that because of the incredible work done in Sci-Fi over the years, we now have an issue where most modern sci-fi authors are writing books based on older sci-fi books they have read, with no real attempt to map the future at all. So a lot of modern sci fi is basically set in "generic sci-fi future based on famous works of sci fi". (Usually this is more "space opera" than "sci-fi" but most people don't note a difference between the two)
Anyone who follows futurism and enjoys sci-fi (a common crossover right?) will have encountered many sci-fi books where some things that are already possible will be ignored.
The classic example is the traditional space submarine. Basically 100 years ago the best way to build a space ship was more or less to make a submarine-ish thing full of people and fire it into space. 5 minutes of research today would tell you that by 2100 it looks like it would be easiest and safest and cheapest and most efficient to send a drone out with no human crew and control robots remotely to get things done.
You won't read many sci fi stories where this happens though because the authors all grew up watching star trek. Because of the scale of potential future changes any realistic sci-fi is going to have to spend 80% of its time world building. The classic "like today but with the following key differences" is looking less and less likely which makes any attempt at an in depth view of the future far more work than one person can reasonably do.