It's just a reference to how CRT-era games look better on CRT as the devs were working with CRTs in mind and taking advantage of their way of rendering images[1].
I don't think there is actually a noticeable difference for the website itself, CRT performs a sort of interpolation which is great for old games that accounted for it, but for content that is already high-enough in resolution there is not any improvement
I sometimes listen to podcasts, close to none of them were discovered inside a podcast app, and the one that were, it was because an author of a podcast I was already listening started a separate one. I used to think that podcast had a discoveribility issue, but I'm honestly not that sure anymore. I don't usually get new books/ebooks suggested by my phone either, and after all, a podcast and an ebook have more things in common than different from each other. I trust word of mouth over algorithm to give me good reading suggestion, and off course I do the same with ebook (in the more sporadic occasion when I want to use ears rather than eyes), maybe it's just unreasonable to expect podcast to act differently.
The article doesn't say, "we shouldn't ban for children because it's bad for adults as well", it says, "we shouldn't regulate for the non-voting pouplation only". Alcohol is regulated for adults, not as much as for children of course, but it's nevertheless regulated (and taxed), and from the same people arguing that we should raise the drinking age (in europe, where it's indeed lower than health expert suggests), we hear argument on increased regulations for adults as well. The social media ban, on the other hand, is for children and children only
Cigarettes and alcohol are more strictly regulated for children than for adults, but are regulated for both, because adults are allowed to harm themselves, but there is a general agreement that the law should discourage that. Yet the call for a social media ban on children is (or at least that's my impression) never accompanied with proposed regulation for adults, or a stricter enforcement of already in place but unenforced rules. I totally agree with you on how the "we shouldn't ban A, because then we should ban everything else" is a false argument, although it didn't seem to me that was the argument on the article (but close to everyone on HN catched that, so I'm going to read the article again with a fresh mind in a couple of days, maybe I just missed that)
In the article is mentioned gambling, and how the rules are more stringent to children, but rules exists for both, and were put in place together. It seems to me (but I don't have social media, don't watch TV, and am not from UK, so I may just have missed that, so please correct me if that's the case) that the current discourse on social media is all about ban for under 16, but with no consideration on damage control for adults, so it's the "do somethings, but not to voters" situation. To your second point, we don't have research indicating social media is good for adults as well, so shouldn't the same precautionary principle apply for both (maybe with different level of precaution)?
It's not what it says, it's more: discussion on what to ban/regulate should include all the population at risk (so in this case, the entire population), not just people at non-voting age. It doesn't even say that whe should apply the same regulation to children and adults, but pretending that something is harmful up until 16, then doesn't need any kind of regulation, is just pretending
[1]https://wackoid.com/game/10-pictures-that-show-why-crt-tvs-a...