I suspect you may have misunderstood the spirit of my comment. I believe that computing should be accessible to everyone, and can guarantee that the harsh thoughts you put in my head are far from my intent.
Let's say you want to enable someone to make coffee at home. One could imagine two different approaches:
a) you give that person a bean grinder, some equipment to match their taste (e.g. an espresso machine or a chemex), and teach them how to make a tasty cup of coffee in their kitchen.
b) you give that person a nespresso machine, and tell them to order capsules once a month from amazon.com
Computing used to be much more like the former approach, philosophically. The foundations that we rely on today were about small, composable, modular programs, operating using well documented open standards and protocols. This approach gave us things like UNIX/POSIX and the internet.
However, mainstream computing has shifted towards much more about the latter kind of approaches. You stay in the walled gardens, you have no way to directly manipulate your data, and you're reliant on _features_ to get anything done.
In our previous coffee example, "pulling a long shot" would have to be a "feature" on the Nespresso machine, that the designers at Nespresso decided to surface on their machine as a switch of some sort for the end user to access. For approach a) though, it's something you can naturally do as part of the process.
One could also argue that a) is also maybe more aligned with the hacker ethos.
That's where my frustration at overzealous productization in computing comes from.
That's not even getting into how approach b) tends to be consistently worse for the environment and society.