In the accepted framework of global trade, where exchange value is either confounded or accepted as a use value, this is a correct stance. I think where we'd end up disagreeing is on that equality. I don't believe that just because you can sell targeted advertising for millions of dollar, that it's actually millions of dollars worth of social use value. We'd have to bicker about the definition of use value, obviously, but I find it hard to imagine an argument for why writing adware at Google is worth the money people are getting paid for it, relative to useful manual labour. In much the same way I don't believe the CEO's labour is worth 100x what the employee is paid, I don't believe the Google Engineer is worth 5x the gardener maintaining a park.
This spoken separation of use value and exchange value is missing from most internet opinions on the economy.
I hope that somewhat helps you understand how the stance can exist, even if I haven't explained it deeply enough for you to actually accept it.
They make tons of money for the US. Value is somewhat more subjective, but Amazon for instance certainly creates an enormous amount of value, as do Google's search and maps products.
I would argue that the democratisation of knowledge that YouTube has enabled is also very valuable.
they're all very mild and are not a clear improvement over previous ways, amazon is full of confusing product reviews and false advertising (they did mutualize ~free home deliveries though), youtube is also loaded with bs, the good content is not that much better than a book the rare time it can claim it is (and I'd argue most of the time it's universities uploading videos they had already made before)
I did love google maps but a bit less since they've made it a store locator more than a map.
I remember not being able to get books, I remember walking for hours in the weather just to find a library that had what I needed, or a shop that sold some flange for the kitchen sink or a crappy 800mAh rechargeable battery for my Walkman despite 1200mAh existing.
I remember trying to figure out where the heck we are/going using rotted out of date map books.
I remember submitting CVs on foot until my legs stopped working.
I remember knowing 0 people I could nerd out with about hacking. I suppose the bright side was that hacking wasn't illegal yet.
And while I'm at it I also remember when MIT OCW came out. It was awesome, but it still sucked. YouTube is a marvel in comparison.
Has Coursera done it better since? Sure. But there's room for more than one player.
All of these digital tools have been dramatic quality of life improvements.
I remember everyone singing along to songs.
I remember when products where safe. Amazon sell fuses that don't work. Food that is doctored. Fake versions of everything. AI generated books.
I remember when businesses were small enough we could and would boycott one that forced them employees to piss in bottles because 'efficiency'.
I remember a ton of times Google maps just fed me straight bullshit.
I remember when CVs weren't automatically rejected based on bullshit criteria/AI decisions without ever being looked at by a human being.
I remember a thousand percent different/more authentic nerding out/hacking community than todays 'embraced' nerd/geek culture.
All of these tools have a horrible side, and because of scale there's not much we can do about it (how do you verify what Google tells you isn't going to get you killed? https://www.sfgate.com/national-parks/article/google-map-res...
and the horrible side keeps growing, while the improvement seems to have mostly happened over a decade ago at this point, with techno optimism beaten out of most of us since then by the very companies that improved our lives a decade ago.
Funny
For instance, why would you blame Google for unattended kids dumb enough to go on a "5h" wilderness trip with 0.5L of water?
I've always hated holiday consumerism.
Products have never been safe, and we're also better at finding out when they're unsafe. I agree that commingling, which has stopped, was bad.
People reject CVs with even less scrutiny than AI.