Adam Smith was writing in the 1770s. At the time, only ~5% of the economy was capitalist. The rest was feudal, where lords owned the land and extracted rents.

Going from a feudal system to a capitalist system was great. All of a sudden people got payed wages, the creation of capital (productive goods) was incentivized. It created a much more dynamic economy.

What we are seeing now is a transition from capitalism to technofeudalism. You no longer buy things, you rent them from corporations that have much more power than you.

Additionally, the giant platforms (youtube, facebook, et al), are like a feudal lord's lands: people post / create content mostly for free, the lord extracts rents from the society (ads, etc). The many have no power, the lords get to organize their platforms however they want, prices rise because of the advertising spend, so even if you don't use facebook you bear the burden.

The entire point of anti-trust is to ensure a capitalist system doesn't transition back into a feudal one.

It turns out the hand is invisible because most of the time, it's not really there.

He also wrote about the problem with monopolies, but that was later on in his book so we forgot to do that part so the market isn't properly free.

He only used that metaphor a few times, and he did not attribute the sort of mystical power to the metaphor that modern neoliberal economists do. He never proposed the modern extreme interpretation of the concept, nor did he suggest that government should release all control over the economy.

Marx treated Smith rather favorably, and credits him for first understanding that labor in general is what creates value. Smith is best understood as an early pioneer in understanding political economy and trade. He likely wouldn’t recognize or understand the capitalism of today (nor would Marx).