> I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but this seems like a strange false dilemma.

The conversation is more complicated than you realize.

At level 1, there exist many parents who, for whatever reason, purchase gadgets for their kids as a means of distraction. Video games, cell phones, etc. This is generally a result of poor decision-making and life circumstance. (Mother died and dad is trying to pick up the slack; hospital bills crippled their finances and they're exhausted after coming home from their third job; work is more important, they weren't really interested in having kids anyways; etc.) Really, this should be level 0, but the exact reason isn't relevant.

At level 2 is people like ausjke, who look at this and see a lot of kids who are utterly absorbed and addicted. They respond to this by swinging the pendulum as far as possible to the other side. Don't be like those kids; they make their parents look bad. To an extent, they have a point: LED screens are very captivating, no matter what's playing on them. But at the end of the day, it's an overreaction.

At level 3, you have angersock, who can see as far down as level 1 and blames the parents. They're not wrong, per se, because the issue at hand is at level 2. If parents paid more attention, then the kids would play in moderation rather than excessively. It tends to be unheard because people at level 2, like ausjke, are pretty self-righteous about how they themselves have parented or were parented.

But as ausjke says, there is a surprisingly good analogy here in drugs. That is, the problem with drugs has nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with societal demonization, power struggles between classes, poor legislation, and economic consequences. He says we ought to blame the drug dealers, but he never asks where they get the drugs and more importantly why they bother at all.

It's a conversation that's been tread over and over and over again. It's not a false dilemma; it's a call-and-response routine.

For what it's worth, I do think that mobile games tend towards the exploitative, that kids should be spending more time playing with other kids and doing physical activity, and a handful of other things.

All that said, there is simply too much complexity wrapped up in the "Games are evil!" sentiment to really do much than call back with the rote "But but but the parental responsibility!".

Why are kids not playing outside--is it because of cookie-cutter suburbs and helicopter parents and the terrorists and kidnappers? Why don't parents have enough time to spend on their kids--is it the long hours at work to support a consumerist and debt-ridden lifestyle? Why is it even important for kids to have access to phones or video games?

These are all interesting questions somewhat fundamental to the issue, and unfortunately they'll never be answered to anyone's satisfaction.

I'm not really faulting you for giving the standard response. I probably would have too. I was just explaining where it came from.

You can have interesting conversations about this stuff; you just can't have it with people who aren't ready to move past the routine.