Well, there is a step beyond framework hell that can work, which is "living inside your own black box"[0]. This strategy intentionally supersedes the lower-level abstraction layers with a higher-level, application-focused one that eases rewriting the underlying stack "sometime down the road". It's nearly the only way you can get that.
But it does require a good understanding of what the application is and does, and a lot of software isn't that: it's just more stuff that has a behavior when you click around and press keys.
Well, the way in which we got there is in adding more features to the "obvious" answer: all any given site necessarily has to do, to have the same presentation as today, is place pixels on the screen, change the pixels when the user clicks or types things, and persist data somewhere as the user does things.
Except...there's no model of precisely how text is handled or how to re-encode it for e.g. screen reading...the development model lacks the abstraction to do layout...and so on. So we added a longer pipeline with more things to configure, over and over.
But - the computing environment is also different now. We can say, "aha, but OCR exists, GPT exists" and pursue a completely different way of presenting many of those features, where you leverage a higher grade of computing power to make the architectural line between the presentation layer and the database extremely short and weighted towards "user in control of their data and presentation". That still takes engineering and design, but the order of magnitude goes down, allowing complexity to bottleneck elsewhere.
That's the kind of conceptual leap computing has made a few times over history - at first the idea of having the computer itself compile your program from a textual form to machine instructions ("auto-coding") was novel and complex. Nowadays we expect our compilers to make coffee for us.
I think part of the issue is that once you get super picky about audio quality - whether from a producer or listener perspective - you also want a physical experience. You want a box with knobs and buttons on it, lots of I/O, wireless capabilities and whatever other features. The classic PC sound card wasn't that; it did make the PC play and record stuff, but it was positioned as a way for consumers to play games and for professionals to record demos(before taking it to a real recording studio). The professional digital recording systems were sold as whole systems, of which a PC could be one part, but always had a proprietary hardware element as well. [0]
For the masses, the high end today is mostly encompassed by a USB headphone DAC. Headphones get you high quality in a small form factor, and a headphone DAC doesn't need a lot of power or I/O. Once you go bigger, again, physical experience takes hold. People want their vinyl collections and so forth in their listening room, and thus where there's demand for digital, it's usually outside of the classic PC form factor too - it could be an iPhone and a Bluetooth speaker, or a dedicated receiver for the home theater setup. Going this route means it can(if built carefully) avoid crashes and updates interrupting the experience.
Blockchains are a tech for commons records among consenting parties. As a "database", it's really quite niche. But as a fundamental tech it's an advancement, because it lets you set up some basic rules and then know that the log henceforth doesn't need a designated custodian, and can accommodate many contributors. The surface area for indiscretion is reduced, and the chain doesn't need highly visible maintenance to stick around.
This quality also makes it actually pretty unsuitable for capitalism: capitalism premises enclosure of the commons through the enforcement of the state. It desires strong identity and legibility everywhere. So it becomes "pointless" by definition - a bad database - if the state or some other body is assumed in control. Thus the commonplace scenario of blockchains being a legitimizing veneer for scams has taken hold: actually using their best qualities is anti-capitalistic, but using them to obscure a scheme can be done if you tinker around with the financing enough so that you stay a step ahead of regulation.
But there is genuine activity, gradually increasing over time, through the contrasting role of blockchain stewardship. This starts with the role of miners in the technical substrate; and it proceeds towards more general ideas around governance and solving decentralized coordination problems. Markets often appear in the midst as a way of ranking things by price as well as by name or category, but markets aren't necessarily special. The speculative market does has a role in building up these ideas, though, because each time the tide goes out, those projects that have done the best at addressing coordination issues become survivors. There's a holistic element to the tech really working well that is just barely being touched upon.
Stallman has basically served his purpose at this point. The path forward is not further awareness-building of Free Software, because everyone is in the orbit of GPL-licensed software now. It is a problem of creating economic incentives for a commons in computing technologies.
Recall that the thing that kicked off the need for Free Software in the first place was the 1970's move to an enclosure of software under IP law to enable the existence of a "software industry" built on shrink-wrapped products. This move often comes in tandem with hostility towards users and non-repairability, but the underlying key point is that of ownership vs stewardship.
What has made the OSS/free world work historically is a dependency on a few key organizations like the FSF or Red Hat that finagled some marginal and often self-interested incentives for the creation and maintenance of the software. Much of it had huge gaps in function or documentation that gave open source an elitist image, of the "we use it internally but we can't tell you how to set it up" sort.
But more recently, we've see the rise of the Patreon developer, who can command some pretty big bucks by being a visible leader in a popular open project. You don't actually need a huge number of those to substantially propel projects forward, since if they do the job well, the drive-by contributors are much more effective, and more user issues get addressed. That is an example of how stewardship is starting to take over software. It is not an evenly distributed phenomenon, and brings certain inequities of its own, but there's some potential to devise better standard arrangements of this sort.
Going analog is really more of an obscurity play than an anonymity one. In which case, you can go online and simply aim to be obscure, to never raise alarms, position oneself as a predatory target, or announce oneself as a threat. Explicit, true thoughts get pushed out to alt accounts, private diaries and the like. You may even allow some degree of linkage to take place, a "if you worked that hard to get here, you know exactly what you were doing" signal. I've done that for years.
I think this is the only way to feel truly at ease with the state of things, really. Keeping a whole self in public or in private is asking a bit much.
But it does require a good understanding of what the application is and does, and a lot of software isn't that: it's just more stuff that has a behavior when you click around and press keys.
[0] https://prog21.dadgum.com/66.html