You can see the same behavior reflected in the hiking culture here in Washington. There are thousands of unbelievable hikes, but a sunny weekend will see a mile-long section of cars at the parking lot for Stuart Lake / Colchuck Lake / The Enchantments, while other hikes throughout the state have no more than 3 or 4 cars.
You're the "Vince Vega" tourist who visits France and eats fucking McDonalds. You've completely missed the point of visiting another place, you've just gone to the place where America has exported its culture into another area, with all the grace and sensitivity of a hiker taking a dump on a birds nest.
I think people here expect better discussion than this.
Something like the Taj Majal is a sight to behold, certainly. But if you just go there, and oooo and aaah at it, and then go home, you haven't experienced a lick of India. You could've had the same experience with a Google Maps walkthrough.
I don't find this offensive so much from a cultural standpoint as much as just a massive waste of time and resources, to jet across the world, go to a completely new place, and experience NOTHING in it. What was the point of it then!? You'd have been further ahead never leaving your damn sofa.
"If you can't be a tourist the way I think you should be a tourist, then you should just stay home and look at photos on Google Maps!" Do you have any idea how much of a pretentious person this makes you sound?
Personally, I avoid any American restaurant chains abroad (and usually do at home too!), but I'm not going to tell people to just "stay home" because they aren't backpacking and staying in hostels like I have. That's some pretty serious arrogance. At least these people are getting out of their comfort zone a little. It's pretty impossible to travel in a foreign country without being exposed a little to the local culture, even if you have a tour guide escorting you around everywhere.
It's an easy parallel to going off the trail when hiking to get away from the crowds: it might not appear to be a problem on an individual scale but as more people do it the vegetation and fungal colonies are damaged, a new social path forms, more people are invited by the easier path and erosion becomes a problem. It clearly forms a feedback loop - the more people that come, the more others feel encouraged and invited, and the more that those on the "cutting edge" feel emboldened to go farther to escape the new crowds.
I was a digital nomad for awhile, too, but even after months in a place you are still a tourist. You are never really living like the locals do, even if you go to their bars and grocery stores.
It's as if the world isn't black and white after all and there is no single right solution for everything.
More mollified, I'd suggest that one can go to 'secondary cities'. Go to Alsace instead of Paris. Go to Sichuan instead of Beijing. Eat what the laborers eat for breakfast. Sleep in someone's home (isn't this what the supposed wonder of AirBnB is for?). Go to places that force you to experience culture just by facts of not having any easy tourist places to go or do.
If you use AirBnB, then all the people whining about tourism (which seems to include you) will get mad that you're avoiding the local governments' hotel regulations.
Personally, I did use AirBnB when I was in Germany last year because the tourists had driven all the hotel prices through the roof in one city. It was a great experience, meeting and talking to a local and staying in a private home. But apparently the anti-travel (for other people besides themselves) liberals think I suck because I didn't use a high-priced hotel.
Also, I have nothing against AirBnB to meet and talk to locals genuinely hosting you in their homes. I have everything against converting residential housing such as apartments to commercial housing (eg. landlords buying multiple condos exclusively to make them AirBnBs)
That's extreme. There's plenty of value in traveling to even touristy places in other cultures.