In-person: all context clues available
Video: screen acts as barrier; latency inhibits rapport
Voice: all visual information missing
Text: all visual and tonal information missing
The article's advice rings more and more true the further down this list you go
I've worked at a few places with a big big backlog of, I guess, SATD. But saying a particular bit of code is "bad" is not enough to get funding/resources to fix the issue.
Usually other departments have a say in resourcing. Depends on your org who they are, but some collection of product, sales, CS, or marketing. Once the code ships and the feature is working well-enough to accomplish its business objectives, developers have lost all leverage to circle back and fix the tech debt. Those other depts don't care how "healthy" the code is; code is only a binary works/doesn't signal to them.
I encourage teams to not make these lists without first thinking about how the list gets consumed. Writing an apology comment or SATD ticket are definitely going to make you feel less guilty about what you're shipping. But it won't help you fix the debt. You have to address that upstream, by injecting engineering concerns into your company's resourcing decisions. Or slow down initial delivery to get it right the first time when engineers still have leverage.