I seriously don't see the author's purpose in trying to establish a distinction. If I act like I hate you: say I come and light your house on fire and salt the earth where you raise your crops and poison the water from your family's drinking well, would it not be reasonable to say that I hate you?

If you can then confirm that I have no intention to stop (even though I know I'm hurting you) and all I have to say in my defense is, "Actually I do exactly whatever I want and just don't care about you at all," what is the difference to me at that point?

In practice total indifference is even more toxic than hate, because it denies engagement. I owe no extra charitability for callous indifference being the root cause of the actions taken. Company or person, society reserves the right to judge you on the effects your force of will brings forth on others. They used theirs to kill their competitors.

In other words: "the purpose of a system is what it does". Duck-typed ethics?

One difference it might make is a warning for those who aren't deliberately trying to make something complex, and think they might thus be immune from the result. In fact, you can wind up with something terribly complex as a result of other pressures, incentives, history, and context, without it having been deliberate. It takes active investment and skill to avoid complexity, even if not intended.