Imagine someone reading a page, then a ping pulls them to a new clip, then another, each tuned to maximize the next click. That is not a neutral library; it is a slot machine for attention. I think algorithmic feeds train Gen Z to expect constant novelty and instant payoff, which makes sustained focus feel unrewarding. The mechanism is straightforward: variable rewards plus infinite scroll condition the brain to seek the next hit. Attention span is a skill, and skills atrophy when the environment punishes practice. That is the core case.

Frame it this way: the question is not whether Gen Z can focus when a payoff is strong, but whether focus is the default. My opponent cites long-form binges, but passive binge-watching is not the same as self-directed concentration. Algorithmic feeds engineer interruption: variable rewards, autoplay, infinite scroll. That trains the brain to expect a new input every few seconds. Other factors like sleep and stress matter, sure, but feeds also displace sleep and amplify stress. A skill that requires fighting your environment to practice will decline on average. That is erosion, not a myth.

My opponent's watch-time point cuts against them. Platforms optimize aggregate retention, not focus, so autoplay and playlists turn one chosen video into a four-hour chain nobody deliberately selected. That is continuous low-effort consumption, not sustained concentration. And an essay playing at 1.5x on a second screen still counts as a view. The metric cannot distinguish deliberate focus from being carried along. A skill develops only when someone chooses to stay with something hard. Feeds train the opposite reflex, then count the resulting endurance as proof the capacity survived.