That book is printed on trees, or the device is powered. Those inflict externalities on others (trees for paper, components for the device, power inputs). Thus it affects others and the wider environment.

What's actually the antisocial behavior here is unsustainably harvesting trees, or polluting power generation. Not the act of reading itself, which has no adverse impact on other members of society.

There definitely is a difference between behavior that has a direct adverse impact on society, and pedantic attempts at portraying non-disruptive behavior as antisocial. A skateboard rolling down the street at night and waking people up is causing direct adverse impact, someone reading in their home does not.

Pushing the blame for externalities onto some nebulous other is antisocial though. It's a way of absolving yourself and others of the responsibility of agency and creating change. Limiting the definition to actions which directly "disrupt" others is simply a way for the privileged to export their antisocial behavior to ethically unburdened faceless corporations.

Is it practical to stop reading because a tree gets cut or your ereader needs charging? Probably not, but that's why change doesn't happen until it's forced by the circumstances.

Most paper is recycled (over 2/3rd). So no, it's not antisocial.

Regardless, it's still a false equivalency to try and equate directly antisocial behavior like making loud noises that disrupt people's healthy sleep and the sustainability of producing paper, some of which is used for printing novels that people read in their homes.

There's no claim of total equivalency. Only that they meet the poorly formed definition given previously

That's not the definition given though. That's why I'm saying if That's the definition we're using, then it could be applied to just about anything.