I'm getting a little tired of the fallacious argument which compares some new technology to an old technology from the past, and says "see how people were afrai

I'm getting a little tired of the fallacious argument which compares some new technology to an old technology from the past, and says "see how people were afraid of that technology from the past, yet their fears proved unfounded? In the same way, fears about this new technology are unwarranted." The reasons I grumble whenever I see this argument made are: 1. The things being analogized are usually not related in such a way that one prediction not coming true suggests that the other prediction won't come true. You have to examine the likelihoods in isolation, you cannot reason from analogy about everything. 2. Often, predictions about the negative consequences do come true, it's just that we adjust our response to them and fit them into our new view of the world. For example, the prediction that allowing calculators in the classroom would make students worse at arithmetic wasn't wrong, we just decided that we didn't care if students are good at arithmetic anymore. That's fine if it's how we decide the world should be, but it is not the same thing as the prediction being wrong. 3. More generally, the way I view disruptive technologies is that they are not "just like" some previous technology, and therefore analogous to it. What I mean is, when someone says "people staring at their phones is just like people staring at newspapers in the past", they ignore the fact that phones replaced newspapers. There was a competition, and newspapers lost, so we have to acknowledge there is some meaningful difference between the two that explains why.