Total abstinence from a negative influence is definitely better than no action at all and I didn't meant to imply otherwise. Regardless of what other approaches there are, it is nonetheless a positive choice to make.

One, for some people, abstinence is the easiest route and that that's an okay decision for them to make.

I agree that abstinence is the easiest route. It is almost the most immediately beneficial. But my point was that, in this case, the harder route is even more beneficial to the person in the long run. Because they not only get to grow as person and reclaim their lives, but they also get to utilise all the beneficial things having a smartphone can enable. And I don't understand why people wouldn't want to aspire to grow and conquer themselves this way versus taking the easiest route of total abstinence.

As such, I think it's that sort of attitude these sorts of articles should be more often promoting. Though I do acknowledge that a period of abstinence can be stepping stone towards this approach.

On the other hand, after reading some more articles on the issues, I can see that I undersold the power these mechanisms can hold over people. I guess I speak from a position of privileged in that these things have never seemed to have as much grip over me as the authors of these articles say it does for them. So what seems like hard but achievable ideal for me, may for them be mountain whose peak is out of view.

So yes, at the end of the day, any action that removes negative influence from a person's life is worth promoting.