If it were 1900 they'd blame newspapers for "damaging" kids. If it were 1930 they'd blame radio. If it were 1950 it'd be television. If it were 1980 it'd be video games. What all of these have in common is being completely bogus.
this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness
in the learners' souls, because they will not use
their memories; they will trust to the external written
characters and not remember of themselves
Newspapers were largely uninteresting to kids, and if anything would have helped literacy at that time which was still a struggle.
Early radio and TVs were often family bonding time, as households had only one.
Video games kickstarted computer literacy for an entire generation.
This is a targeted exploitation-driven market now that has been so much more refined by technology that it's beyond addictive. It's also targeted in a way none of those other things could have been to a specific individual to double down on that.
No, it's not addictive. That word has a meaning and it does not apply to this context. The DSM V has addressed the "social media" and "video game" concepts re: addiction with committees multiple times and every time it's very clear from the science: there is no addiction. And no, personal anecdotes do not overturn this. You might use the word "disorder" like the DSM V's grandfathered in "gambling disorder". But it is not an addiction.
The idea of "addiction" in the context of stimuli from screens and speakers is a meme with no more basis than slenderman. Huge popular awareness but completely made up.
