[superkuh]

It is universal that authoritarians want to characterize audio-visual screens as if they directly altered incentive salicence like addictive drugs do. They do this because the false comparison, the inaccurate social memes (dopamine hit, etc), all invoke the coercion of actual drugs. But the fact is that audio-visual screens do not alter incentive salience directly. They are just like any other part of our world and sometimes present enjoyable stimuli. That is vastly unlike how addictive drugs addict people. There no need for enjoyment in the first place even exists.

Chemically addictive drugs that directly alter wanting could be argued to require use of force to prevent people from being coerced. But screens have no such justification for using force against people who look at screens. It is use of force in a situation without any coercion. And that's unethical.

[Daishiman]

By your logic gambling is A-OK? I take it you never go to restaurants and see kids socially stunted by being hung up on tablets?

[superkuh]

Gambling disorder is not like drugs in that it gambling does not directly hijack incentive salience either but I agree it can be seriously debilitating. That's an observable reality though I've never personally known someone who had that issue. It's been grandfathered into the DSM and law for so long the status quo is probably okay and does help people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant You are right that the children I see around my region aren't like you describe. I don't eat out. But I am often outside biking around and see people outside (kids included) biking around. My siblings and friends' kids read books in addition to being technically competent with desktop (or at least laptop) computers. I'm not sure which of us is seeing the smaller part of the elephant but to me the kids seem alright.