Some people argue about the superiority of old-fashion reading. They may have a point, since there are studies which conclude it helps you retain more information than listening.
Even if that’s true, I think it is wrong to look down on people who choose to listen rather than read. The reason why is because there’s something valuable about removing friction.
I once heard someone tell a story about a person asking his priest what translation of the bible he should get. The priest replied with, “the one that you’ll actually read.” In this exchange lies a very valuable lesson: choosing a path that you’ll stick with is better than choosing a "superior" option that you won’t stick with. Because something is infinitely better than nothing.
That might seem obvious, but I’m willing to bet we’ve all, at some point, missed out on personal progress just because we viewed the path with less friction as inferior, and yet failed to commit to the superior path.
I started to listen to audiobooks around 2010. I did read the old-fashion way before (and still do sometimes), but once I switched, the amount of books I finished increased significantly. Without audiobooks, and the friction they removed, there are a lot of books I wouldn’t have consumed at all.
Sometimes I consume books by listening to the narrator (or text-to-speech) AND reading along. I’ve found that this complete immersion helps me retain information better while still reducing the effort of reading myself. (Could this be more superior than just reading?)
Anyway, my point is that we should not stigmatize audiobooks.
Sometimes it's best to do what you find more appealing because it will be your best bet for personal progress. Don’t worry if it’s objectively worse in a vacuum. Be unapologetic about your methods.