There are probably two aspects. Contemporary dialect users are generally poor in dialect Chinese characters, and even have lost their sense of language. The explanation is correct. On the other hand, personally, I think that modern spoken Chinese is obviously a self-source language, but there are a large number of synonyms and colloquial variants, which is a feature. Especially for things that have been renovated in the process of modernization, the original spoken language is replaced by written language/new words that conform to the habits of written language. This is rare in western languages at least, but its nature is equivalent to the process of Japanese and Korean transliteration words replacing native words and Chinese words. It started in Zhao Yuanren's time. He complained that written language has largely replaced spoken language in the past ten years. He is not aiming at the problem of new terms. At that time, he probably said the word "original": "at first".

Speaking of touch screens, take this as an example. Silicon Valley English, at least when used by users, is particularly simple, lively and close to spoken English. For example, Smart phones and Touch screens, smart and touch are the most spoken words, which are not as thick as smart and touch at all, and the writing is not so good, but modern Chinese seems to be unable to accept this aura (sorry, I really can't think of any words that can correspond to Mandarin, so I use Wu/Upp's aura to make up the numbers). I even suspect that "Apple Chinese" is trying to find a counterpart for the life-oriented, colloquial and deliberately ungrammatical sentences in the original English. However, it is really difficult for them. Modern Chinese does not express the sense of science and technology in this way at all. In other words, it can be said that there are "some problems" in the expression of modern new things in Chinese, and the method of dialect writers giving up written vocabulary is not necessarily good enough in aesthetics and feasibility. However, you can see that in this issue, some people are still emphasizing the opposition between decadent "vulgarity" and "elegance". As an attempt to break through this point, the language concept behind them deserves respect, and those who have feelings for language style should think deeply. This is not just a question of "dialect".