It's pre-emptive in that it doesn't address any of it, you just says that "this" has been said about other things, supposedly implying that since this somehow refutes even one sentence in the article, making all discussion of any details in it superfluous.
But you don't even have the courtesy to say that, just leave it implied, and then paper that over with some fluff about the Beatles as if that could distract from that. So you "stand behind" stating a triviality and then not saying what you cannot directly defend.
About "older generations rejecting change", that old, dank chestnut... conveniently ignoring all the changes welcomed with open arms by older generations, too, and all the young people who think this stuff stinks. It's a fake narrative to skirt actual argumentation. More importantly, resistance against these methods, as well as the people who rationalize them, is just as much "progress" as is inventing and employing them.
So you don't think what I said is true? That every form of entertainment targeted toward young people for the past half a century has had the same rhetoric attached to it? Were you alive in the 80s? Do you remember that D&D was accused of causing Satanism and causing teens to commit human sacrifice? I'm seriously not making that up, it happened.
The entire thesis of the blog post is that tech companies are "ruining" our children by employing psychologically manipulative product development. My argument is that this has been happening for ages and people continue to grow up as regular human beings.
Of course it's true that most forms of media and entertainment have been subject to, "Won't someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" responses from busy-bodies, fear-mongers, and others.
That in no way mitigates the fact that this medium is categorically different. None of newspapers, comics, D&D, TV, or any of those other things had immediate, real-time feedback adapted specifically to the individual user, and designed to weaponize the amygdala and dopamine responses to maximize engagement, at the cost of basically everything else.
Interactive tech brings a sea change in this phenomenon and its effectiveness. You can't meaningfully dismiss that, because it's predicated on the paltry shadow of what happened with non-interactive media.
EDIT: Consider, for example, the cohort of children whose early development screen time correlates profoundly strongly with their inability to hold a pencil. That's new. TV didn't do that. D&D didn't do that. Screens did.
I beg to differ. I think you're definitely overestimating the importance of individualization. TV has been doing all of these things for half a century. People will literally watch it all day and definitely become addicted.
Advertising has been "weaponizing the amygdala" for a century. It's designed to instill insecurity and envy.
> How psychology is being used as a weapon against children
My dismissal isn't pre-emptive btw, I read the article (and many others like it). I stand by my original comment.