I can appreciate your argument and the point but it has one key flaw. It presumes that the people who would received UBI would only use it to consume more “goods” and/or digital goods. While this is certainly true for some or perhaps even most persons it is not even close to universally true. There are a percentage of persons who would use said income to for instance; start their own business, travel the world, save it (gasp!), go to college/get educated, buy medicine for themselves or their children, or even give it away to charity. None of these things could be viewed as (primarily) benefiting our digital overloads. We are still free citizens who can make choices, even if they are greatly circumscribed by our financial circumstances. I still think the benefits of UBI (for this set of persons at least) outweighs the theoretical negatives in terms of further enrichment of the upper class. They are getting richer without UBI and they will get richer with it. At least with it some people’s lives will be slightly or perhaps even greatly better off then they would have been without it. All the alternatives you mention have a Plank’s length above zero chance of actually happening, whereas UBI might have a real chance, particularly if the wealthy feel it is to their benefit as you suggest in this post they do.