Guys, did anyone who commented so far actually read any of the article?

I'll give you a quote what this is actually saying:

Arguing that all screen time is inherently bad and must be reduced at all costs fails to take into consideration what that screen time actually is.

And a quote from the study they talk about

The researchers’ best guess is that the question “how many hours?” was always the wrong one. What matters is what fills those hours.

A child who spends an evening solving puzzles, building elaborate worlds in a game, editing videos or looking things up is doing something with their attention and memory. A child passively watching an autoplay feed is doing something quite different. The study could not fully separate those uses, but Jalanko’s advice points that way: parents and teachers should steer children toward screen use that involves active thinking, problem-solving, creativity and learning.

No link to the study mentioned: sus

Link provided in the article links to other articles, of the three I clicked none linked to the studies they mentioned: double sus

Same people who blindly believe this one way or the other are the same people who drink regular soda because diet is "bad" for you. Don't disguise your preference for perfection. What matters is your child's relationship to you, themselves, and the world around them. You can choose when enough TV is enough, you don't have to be told. If you don't know how much that is, maybe know your kids better.

Doubt

more adults getting vasectomies would be beneficial

*Study by 8 year old child reveals screen time beneficial to children