"They care that the object that lets them relax with funny videos after work keeps breaking" - think you kinda accidentially hit the nail on the head of why this line of thought pisses me off. Historically, large amounts of culture were produced + recreated by the people who participated within it. While the printing press and, in this case, its more modern counterparts offer liberationary potential, they also entrap us. Smartphones, other than their cameras, are designed exclusively for consumption, and therefore make consumption the only form of relaxation for most people. What does it mean for society that most of those videos are picked by an algorithm designed by a private company to maximise profit? What does it mean that piracy is made much harder, so private interests can make media disappear overnight? What does it mean that you require the approval of a business to share a program you made with someone else? If someone only uses the big social media sites, as app-centered mobile devices strongly encourage, then most of their social activity is now entirely devoted to capital. I'm not saying that everybody should use the command line - I'm saying that these devices are engineered to reproduce a caste of tech elites, and keep the masses in their MrBeast feed bags, far more than they're engineered for human utility. I've become entirely unhinged while writing this, but hopefully I got some kind of point across.

“Art belongs to the people. It must leave its deepest roots in the very thick of the working masses. It should be understood for the masses and loved by them. It must unite the feelings, thoughts and the will of the masses and raise them. It should awaken artists in them and develop them.” - Vladimir Lenin