I think the more interesting observation here, although the OP doesn't originally point it out, is that the spread of technology is associated with some sort of utility. Fashion and language seem more subjective: there's not a reason to prefer one over another. But with technology the idea is often that there are better or more productive tools. For example, the steam engine is more productive than the water wheel.

The point of "hype", on the other hand, and the reason to be "hype-optimistic" as the OP is, is that it can result in the spread of technologies that are not necessarily better. In other words, tech hype or marketing will not necessarily spread technologies in a meritocratic way. But actually what many cultural anthropologists know, such as by studying the spread of early human tools, is that there is a wisdom of the crowd effect where large social adoption of suboptimal technology tends to improve that technology unintentionally.

Those who decry "hype" are operating from an engineering background, where good tools are designed from the top down. But "hype" is more like a social force, which can emergently produce better tools from the bottom-up. The latter dynamic is robust yet uncontrollable, but it's definitely a real thing.