I always interpreted Godwin's law to be about maximalist claims. Unfortunately calling someone in a nazi in 2023 isn't as insulting as calling someone a nazi in 1990. I'd guess the reason you don't see it as much is because it's not as strong a word anymore, thanks to, you know, actual nazis trying to make a comeback.
In that sense the update wouldn't be "here's another thing I see all the time" but "here is the absolute maximalist claim I can make about a person's character."
See also the claim to be suffering cognitive dissonance.
I assume they are from immature people who think using scientific sounding terms adds wait to their argument.
Godwin's law was an experiment in memetics. It's not actually a "thing" any more than people make it a thing, the progenitor was playing with putting a concept out there to see what happened. What happened was beyond his expectations.
I think its social utility has overtaken its birth story somewhat. It's a particularly reductive line of reasoning in forms of argumentation, that arguments descend to very crude and unpleasant norms quickly, and more often than people think. I think there are times it's mis-applied and times it accurately characterises the nature of debate. "it depends" basically.
We'll probably see something similar happen with "Tankie" and "CCP" and "Moscow shill" which now intrude as much, and as often as Nazi references.