I'd argue that's only true if the system can't be better than emailing papers around.

I think Github/Gitlab/Bitbucket have shown us that you can do better than emailing patches. I think the academic world could do better than just emailing crap (the arXiv has already done this, but not for full on peer-review). It's just that the current tools are not good.

I think Aaronson is mostly right to tell off these journals. However, I think the idea of tools that improve peer review is a good one.