While this is meant rhetorically - as in, the proposition that we should be getting paid to use social media and the inevitable refusal of such payment should turn us off of "working for free" , there's actually a psychological phenomenon about how getting paid to do something makes us enjoy it less. This is because your reward structure sees happy feelings replaced by currency.

https://mbird.com/2012/03/the-secret-cost-of-getting-paid-to-do-what-you-love-self-perception-theory-and-the-overjustification-effect/

It's an interesting paradox, attempting to analyze our decreased faculties for qualitative analysis using our apparently decreased faculties for qualitative analysis. Our brains certainly adapt to the environment they're in. Perhaps if the deluge of information, and "the facts', as the author later notes, is causing us to lose compatibility with previous thought patterns such as multifaceted arguments, we need to find a way to leverage the new ways we make decisions. The cyber-ethnography he mentions is a good step to analyzing cultures that exist only in expressions of thought.

This is interesting and I think correct, because it applies specifically to technologies whose function is superficially ambiguous. "Things" have intuitively understood uses. For instance, you use a sewing machine to sew. But even a primitive telephone is just a bunch of buttons a microphone, and a speaker, and the potential to be used for almost anything. The same is true of smartphones, depending on where you go in the world, people will not just be using different apps, but they'll be communicating through the device in entirely different ways. Our concept of digital technologies is a loosely coupled group of uses tied together only by the hardware that happens to be facilitating them.