From the article's source (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019665530...): "None of these surgical masks exhibited adequate filter performance and facial fit characteristics to be considered respiratory protection devices"
Well, what's "adequate filter performance and facial fit"? For filter performance, they measured how good the surgical masks were at blocking tiny latex spheres that approximated an aerosol, and found that masks ranged from less than 1% penetration (best) all the way to 80% penetration (worst). For facial fit, they told subjects who "were not screened for previous use of masks or respirators" to wear masks and then sprayed an aerosolised bitter substance on them, and found all of the subjects could taste it after their first try.
The article is making the claim that masks don't stop you getting sick, based on a source that indicates some masks don't filter aerosols completely and that nobody wears masks correctly anyway. This is a bit of a stretch - their source says nothing about larger droplets, it says nothing about side effects like touching your face less, it says nothing about masks encouraging other people to socially distance, it says very little about how masks reduce the viral load that reaches you.
I don't think there's enough evidence to categorically state that masks do not stop you getting sick. I think it's irresponsible to make such a firm statement without better evidence.