This is a concept still in the making. I came across a few people discussing it, and I found next to nothing about it online. I thought it is important and I post it here to give it some traction.
The core idea that appealed to me is that it extends the idea that the processing power and bandwidth of modern devices is not used for our own sake, but to better funnel behavioral data to corporations.
So it is not just "so stupid design" that "we don't even feel devices are 10x faster than 15 years ago", but deliberate design to use the hardware capabilities for the sake of other people's computers.
The countercomputing philosophy asks, down to the chipset, what is the most repairable, reusable component, that can help the user fortify their computing and harness it as independently as possible.
It is obviously a thought that resonates with the right-to-repair movement, privacy, and other politics related with renewable energy, but with a particular focus in selecting each and every component so that we own the hardware and we can use it as we see fit. Other links can be drawn to the smallnet initiatives such as gemini protocol, alternative nets like Reticulum, and of course open hardware.
The retro angle can offer flexibility to movements to rely on simpler components and adjust their needs, something that will also lead to greater independence >from Nvidia and the like.
As I said, there are very few people discussing this idea right now, and you can't find much online, but it is worth to "look out for" possible developments in the future.
In a perfect world, I'd run my games in a virtual OS so I had control over what info was sent to the various companies. Something to spoof what hardware I was actually using... but VMs are often not an option with AAA or AA games due to anti-cheat. (which is a whole other kettle of fish)
Some of these rootkits, yeah, I get that. However, my point still stands on that front without the use of those malware rootkits disguised as anti-cheats.