I can see both perspectives being possible, but I think what's under contention is less “proportion of computational literacy across the entire populace” and more something like “relative weight of control inputs to the social systems that build dominant technology coming from people who have computational literacy”. Thought experiments with much more obvious unequal channels, for instance: we wouldn't necessarily be in this situation if the major tech makers had a mysterious-wizard-enforced pact to design primarily based on the feedback of computationally literate academics; conversely, if we had a very computationally literate population, but an authoritarian government whom all the major tech makers had to answer to who wanted to keep the genie in the bottle, that could just as well be the situation in the OP. (This is not to pass judgment on other possible outcomes of those situations. I'm also using “computational literacy” here because “tech literacy” feels a bit too wide, even if “tech” has come to commonly be a metonym for “computer tech”.)

The geek/MOP/sociopath triangle wouldn't be a terrible description of the “subculture takeover” that seems to have occurred.