Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, I was thinking about that too. But one aspect of brutalist architecture is "showing how it's made", making infrastructure visible, making structural apparatus visible. And making raw materials visible for what they are, not trying to make them look like something they're not. That's part of it's "rawness" too, as I've always understood it -- it's not just about using concrete. That part does seem to some extent…
I think that context matters. Coming out of the 1940's, where fascism preyed on nostalgia and fear, brutalism brings forward a concept of the future that is both fearless and lacks nostalgia. Not seeing the world through your imagination of how you want to see it, but how it really is. Unlike Albert's Spear's or Mussolini's Roman and Greek inspired pieces (setting EUR aside), a brutalist view is honest, simple, and l…
(And of course it should be said that both Italian and German fascist architecture could also be big into modernism, and a "concept of the future that is fearless", and even in some ways "lacks nostalgia". Fascism is nothing if not contradictory.)
I still think there's something notable about the "draw attention to it being a computer screen" that is notable about the designs in OP -- that OP doesn't actually discuss much -- whether or not we call it "brutalism". Interestingly though, I also want to say it kind of wants to draw attention to it's artificiality in a way that seems very contrary to brutalism. Perhaps since the computer screen is such an artificial "simulacrum" kind of environment in the first place, to draw attention to it's true nature is to promote a kind of artificiality, when to draw attention to the true nature of a physical building was in the 20th century thought of as a dismissal of artifice.
Anyway, this is maybe getting pretty far afield, but interesting stuff!