There's two types of wants. The low want of a heroin addict who wants his next fix, and the higher want of the same heroin addict who wants to get clean and a better life. These "wants" can both coexist. If you only use their actions to infer their wants you completely ignore the existence of their higher order wants. It's dehumanizing.
The people want the internet in the "next fix" sense. But I'd argue that the increase in mental illness globally the last ~15 years (starting a couple of years after the introduction of the iPhone) or even just the recent popularity of "digital detoxes" implies that there is a collective higher order want for a better internet.
Both you and GP are assuming people to be perfectly spherical rational actors in a philosophical vacuum. Under this assumption, people are indeed responsible for what they get, as the market only serves the demand. But that's not the world we live in - in our world, "revealed preferences" are bunk, because the suppliers have a lot of tools to control the demand.
The "hoi polloi" aren't born with fully fleshed out idea of "what they really want". Nor do they have much ability to communicate their wants to the market directly. Rather, their wants are in large part created by marketers, and the only signal they can send to the market (via "voting with your wallet") is their relative preferences for options available on the market. That is, they only get to choose from what's available. And what's available is under control of the vendors.
The way this relates to your "lower/higher order wants" is that my actions can actually communicate either of them. Where I spend my attention, or my money, can be driven directly by a high-order want - but I'm still limited to expressing that need only by choosing from a very limited set of actions or products that are available, and then my choice is also heavily biased by sales tricks and manipulative advertising strategies.
In short: I claim that the market is currently robbing all consumers of agency - "hoi polloi" and ${whatever the complement to that is called} alike. This is especially pronounced in tech industry, as commercial software resist commoditization - most apps and services are sticky and not interchangeable, so the UX decisions aren't being strongly influenced by competitive pressure. The vendors have an actual choice of how useful or how abusive they want to be. And they should get the blame when they choose the latter.
I see a three stage change, from the pre-Bernays world of informational
advertising and functional markets, to the post-Bernays world of contrived
demand driven by psychological advertising, to what we have now.
Now we have policy driven economics in which technological goods are
foisted upon the population and a post-hoc rationale of why they are
necessary is relentlessly pushed as an explanatory narrative.
We're approaching the point where the "very limited set of actions or
products " is so dominant that the only choice looks like abstinence;
the "Luddite's" choice to not be abused.
What about the middle ground want of a heroin addict who loves heroin but wants pure, unadulterated, properly-dosed, controlled, trustworthy heroin from reputable, consistent vendors, accessed sanely and easily, taken quietly and unobtrusively, so they can float around and have a good time when it fits into their life?
Isn't that the dream of good technology and good internet?
People want the "next fix" internet because that's all they know. People would likely prefer a different internet if they ever had the chance to experience it.
You undermine the argument in favor of "better internet" with a terrible analogy from war on drugs.
There are plenty normal, highly functional heroin users whom we don't know about because they hide this (since it's prosecuted). The poster examples of abuse are not them however, which helps justify prosecution. On the other hand there are people with mental issues who will get addicted to anything, if not heroin then weed, if not weed then gambling, if not gambling then social media, etc etc. Maybe "dehumanizing" is trying to ban every potential vice rather than fixing the issues that lead to misuse. The cause vs. the symptom.
I'd highly recommend "The Myth of Normal" by Gabor Mat\'e as the long
version of this position.
But beware, once you accept its premise one must concede by the same
token, those who prey upon the vulnerable in society, whether they are
heroin farmers and dealers, or addictive app developers, are cut from
the same moral cloth. The "legality" or "illegality" of the end
product is immaterial, only the social effects.
It's also true. But I don't think this is the best analogy to support the idea of "better internet". Also, you can consider that people who prey on vulnerable are maybe also subject to issues. If not then why prey, right?
The people want the internet in the "next fix" sense. But I'd argue that the increase in mental illness globally the last ~15 years (starting a couple of years after the introduction of the iPhone) or even just the recent popularity of "digital detoxes" implies that there is a collective higher order want for a better internet.