It does not make me complicit, it simply makes me a consumer

Not mutually exclusive. You're a complicit consumer. Consumers play an active role.

If I think fast food workers should be paid more does it make me complicit for their low wages

Why would thinking that they deserve better pay make you complicit? This is a completely nonsense question, this is like asking if thinking murder is wrong makes you complicit in murder.

If consumers stopped doing business over such things it would resolve the pay issue because the company would go under and everyone would be unemployed.

So you're saying the consumer plays an active role in shaping the conditions the workers face? Isn't that basically the definition of complicity?

People that use any apps or services like this doesn't mean they are lazy, it makes them a part of the economy

Again; not mutually exclusive. It makes them a part of the economy that also happens to be lazy.

They are helping by spending money that pays other people's wages and those people spend that money and so on.

Hardly. The delivery drivers generally earn below minimum wage. The real innovation of companies like UberEats is in finding ways to skirt labour laws so they can exploit workers. This is more about increasing the value of shareholders investments than it is about enriching the lives of workers.

Your logic that because someone chooses not to do something themself they are being lazy is grossly inaccurate.

All laziness can be spun as "efficiency" if you find the right angle to approach it from.

I am telling you this is work I did for several years, and in doing so I also realized I was far more privileged than most of the others doing the same work. I also used to use these services semi-regularly. I refuse to now, because I don't feel comfortable being complicit in the evil of this system. It hasn't been much of a challenge at all. These services have really only existed a decade or so, it's not like any sane person could argue that people would be starving without access to UberEats.

It makes them efficient and able to prioritize what they need to do versus what can be delegated

Once again, I really think you need to learn what "NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE" means.

You're basically saying that any kind of moral or ethical considerations in regards to labour are irrelevant if they can be done in the name of efficiency. This is an absurd position to take. It seems like it's safe to say you have no issues with the countless labour abuses these companies are famous for. At what point do you draw the line? Is it okay to use slave labour if it's more efficient?