I'm no booster of screen time, and am always concerned about the headlong rush to incorporate tech into education without care and vetting, but this article is journalistically questionable, and does more harm than good in advancing our understanding. nytimes.com/2018/10/26/sty…
I think it's interesting to know how Silicon Valley execs look at screens and tech, but this article is masquerading as something more, suggesting these views are authoritative and true, when really, it's all anecdotal.
The title and pull quote are out of a moral panic, not particularly illuminating as to the larger thesis. It's sensationalism, rather than grounded reporting. Again, I have worries about tech and screens, but "the devil?" 
While research is referenced secondhand in the article (parents have looked at research), none is cited directly. While it's a developing and shifting field, it does exist, @anya1anya covers it in The Art of Screen Time. amazon.com/Art-Screen-Tim…
Or this passage about two parents who differ on video games. There is tons and tons of research on the impact of video games, how different games do different things, benefits and drawbacks etc. None of this is mentioned.
I've seen multiple reactions to this article about how it shows screens are bad, but it shows no such thing. We need to come to a much better understanding about the impact of screens and tech on children, but this kind of coverage does nothing to advance that goal.
It's because I am concerned about screens that I think we need to look critically at this kind of coverage. Scaremongering (which this is) doesn't help us see the issues more clearly, and it obscures more than it illuminates.
The title itself, using "Silicon Valley" as the location of this "dark consensus" suggests that this is some kind of industry-wide understanding of the problem, but it really is a handful of anecdotes about worried parents. I could write a "dark consensus" article about anything.
Smart phones and screens aren't going anywhere. They (and whatever's next) will be part of our lives going forward, which is why we need to see their impacts much more clearly. Calling them the work of the devil prevents us from doing that critical thinking.
At some point all of these things were the work of the devil: television, jazz, rock, dancing, skirts above the ankle, reading, women's suffrage, emancipation, etc, etc. I feel as though the New York Times could do better, and so could the journalists I've seen promoting this.
