My problem is that it's not challenging its audience's assumption that the activities in question are childish. It tacitly grants that they're childish, and then tries to defend them by looking for a positive side. The corollary is that if that positive side didn't exist the reader would be justified in being outraged at what young people are doing.

I don’t think that’s feasible, because the activities are child-like. Asking for that perspective shift requires a lifetime.

What the article does challenge successfully is whether the negative connotations are merited. i.e., childish.

And it uses a real life example to argue that it’s not merited at the big picture level.