It's not "elitist", it's principled. The only question that matters is if a business practice is violating fair market principles and relevant laws or not. "What about my grandma" is not an argument and not relevant to the judges' judgement. The world doesn't revolve around OP's grandma.
Furthermore, the most potent attack vector was, is and will always be social engineering, which is much more likely on smartphones than on dumb phones. So if it's not concern trolling, then the obvious move is to buy a dumb phone for grandma instead of depriving everybody else of their freedoms and rights.
It is absolutely elitist. It is rich hearing from privileged folks with advanced degrees say how their "principles" are being violated. This is just another example of a small elite being comfortable with the non-privileged suffering just so they can enjoy their hobbies.
What a strange non-sequitur. I did not say that "my principles" are being violated, but the principles of U.S. economists, judges and relevant authorities in the United States and their views as to what constitutes a fair market. A brief study of the history of anti-trust cases should suffice to cultivate some understanding regarding those principles (see United States vs. Paramount Pictures, AT&T, Microsoft et cetera...)
Furthermore, the most potent attack vector was, is and will always be social engineering, which is much more likely on smartphones than on dumb phones. So if it's not concern trolling, then the obvious move is to buy a dumb phone for grandma instead of depriving everybody else of their freedoms and rights.