Human beings are social animals. They need social interaction to survive. Being isolated is recognized as a form of torture. Interactions being draining is often a consequence of contingent societal factors rather than an essential property of interaction itself.
I think you’re both right. They are right about religious institutions in class societies. You use the word “initially” and are right about religion in those very early, classless societies called “primitive communism”. When people started using agriculture, classes arose with material surplus, patriarchal structures formed to manage inheritance of that surplus and over some time, the violent suppression of oppressed classes by the ruling class was taken up by various institutions that coalesced into states. Religious institutions fit in here. They became tools of oppression or were oppressed and destroyed themselves. Those that survived fell in line. And their task in class societies is to produce hegemony. In a revolutionary moment, religion has sometimes been adapted to serve liberation and that could happen again.
It’s important to make these two distinctions when talking about religion. First, between individual believe and organized religious institutions. Even a deeply religious person can still condem all religious institutions. And second, based on the societal context: religious institutions at what time, in what society? Religious believes of members of which class? Do they help to liberate or oppress? Do they urge to accept circumstances or to fight for freedom? Both is possible.
There’s also a third distinction that comes up often: between orthodoxy (for example what’s written in holy scripture) and lived historical reality.
Personally, I’m an atheist, but I have religious friends who I respect deeply.
The benefit is for Google to make more profits if people are locked into their “ecosystem” without competition driving the prices down.
Do you really need those games?