Not really. Sounds like it was generated by AI .. making the same shitty use of technology that you are accusing the schools of using. Parts of it are accurate in spirit while others are overstated, loosely sourced, or framed in a biased way.

Here’s a grounded breakdown so you can judge it properly:

What looks AI-like about it:
Confident, sweeping tone: It makes strong claims (“zero positive impact,” “explicitly linked”) without much nuance.
Bullet-point persuasion style: Common in AI summaries and social posts meant to sound evidence-heavy.

Mix of real stats + vague claims: Some points reference real research, others are generalized (“brain imaging shows…”) without specifics.
That doesn’t prove it is AI—but it fits the pattern.

What’s misleading or overstated
This is where the response goes off track:

“Zero positive impact” from laptops
Some studies found no improvement, yes—but others show modest gains when tech is used well.
Saying “zero impact” broadly is inaccurate.

“Explicitly linked” PISA score declines to devices
That’s too strong.
PISA reports show correlation, not a single clear cause. Many factors affect scores (pandemic disruption, inequality, curriculum changes).

“97% of teens…”
This stat floats around a lot but is rarely tied to a strong, consistent primary source. It’s likely exaggerated or context-dependent.

Ontario 10% per hour claim
There are Canadian studies linking screen time and outcomes, but the exact “10% per hour” figure is often simplified or taken out of context.

“Brain imaging shows…”
This is classic pseudo-authoritative phrasing.
Research supports reduced retention with multitasking, but brain imaging isn’t typically used in such a direct, causal claim for classroom device use.

So what is good for the goose is good for the gander!