Taking the internet off the hook | Hacker News Reader

Taking the internet off the hook

notes.npilk.com

13 pointsnpilk8 comments

There's literally a switch inside the phone for this, you can detect it being hooked from its actual plug. The elegance from using the phones own hardware is missed in mindlessly bolting on another sensor, leaving the phone nothing but a shell, this detracts so much from the otherwise neat idea of "having a physical device restrict your internet connection."

This is cool!

Though there's some irony in using a whole separate door sensor for the "off the hook" detection, when the phone already has such a sensor in it... IIRC, when the phone is on the hook, it appears as an open circuit, and when it's off the hook, it's a closed circuit (current flows)? Not sure of the details, though.

I think it's one approach to try to hack your world to resolve the behaviour. It never strikes me as the right one though.

We can say we live in a world of endless distractions that keep us from more worthy causes, but we are also choosing to spend our time being distracted. This is stating the obvious, but we must want to be endlessly distracted, otherwise we wouldn't do it.

Perhaps if that feels like the wrong answer, it is because we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps the proper question is what level of technology is acceptable in our lives.

So, for example, we now know that smart phones come with lots of extras, apps, games, finance, social, etc. Lots of apps are also explicitly designed to be addictive. Once you have a phone, it's not really possible to close the door to some and allow others, at least not to a satisfactory level.

Ultimately, if the technology is not serving you, you have the choice to not use it. You can take the nuclear option, and turn your back on whatever hardware. Perhaps this is the real question - can we turn our back on entertaining, pleasurable technology that wastes our time to some extent, to allow natural physical life back in?

Your reply is thoughtful, so I'll add comments below. I am wondering about your definition of individual choice in relation to addiction.

In my anecdotal research for Digital Vegan [1] I asked a fair number of people about their smartphone and social media use, often in an annoyingly Socratic fashion.

> We can say we live in a world of endless distractions that keep us from more worthy causes, but we are also choosing to spend our time being distracted. This is stating the obvious, but we must want to be endlessly distracted, otherwise we wouldn't do it.

In my research I picked up on very little joy or excitement. This is a notable contrast to my own experience of technology as a young person. Being a geek, when I was 20 or 30 my passion for all things new was raging, and it still is at 50. But for people I spoke to in 2020, even quite nerdy types, there's a definite sense around technology of misery interspersed with moments of satisfaction/relief.

Psychologically, and based on experiences with seeing addiction destroy lives, it seems quite consistent with dependency and lack of control. Of course the sample is biased. They are by definition, the kind of people who want to talk to sceptical researchers. I am also fortunate enough to know psychotherapists and other psychology professionals who treat dependency disorders, but that obviously skews my view toward the pathological.

> Perhaps the proper question is what level of technology is acceptable in our lives.

This is the conclusion I came to as well. Not just the amount but the quality. We can tolerate a lot of technology in our lives if it's "healthy". Unfortunately much technology today is hostile, and designed to exploit/abuse the user rather than be a tool for their empowerment. Thats one of the largest changes between 2000 and 2020.

> Lots of apps are also explicitly designed to be addictive. Once you have a phone, it's not really possible to close the door to some and allow others, at least not to a satisfactory level.

A big theme in Digital Vegan is a more sophisticated analysis of "addiction", which is itself a complex subject. Addiction involves other life factors, availability, social acceptability, poverty, and much more. As with drugs and alcohol, callously saying that it is wholly a persons "choice" is partial.

A big factor is peer pressure and social coercion. Many people who successfully quit dependencies do so by getting out of a circle of "friends" who amplify their behaviour. The social acceptability of abusive technologies, and subtle forms of control and abuse mediated by technology is part of the bigger picture. Take for example the emergence extremely hostile technologies like so-called "Boss-ware" that some groups (again poverty plays a part) have forced upon them.

> Ultimately, if the technology is not serving you, you have the choice to not use it.

This is worthy of a book or PhD research project in itself. The person who states this in terms that resonate with me with is Vint Cerf. I will quote a little but also paraphrase him in my own way by saying;

    "At one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a
    living. But the important right in that case was the right to make
    a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a
    right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put
    it. Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself" [2]

As I see it, if we are to respect the more fundamental human rights of "life, liberty and security of person" then the greater human right may be NOT to be connected to the internet. It is freedom from technologies at least insofar as we are free to manage our own affairs and engagement.

Other than the European "Right to be forgotten" and legislation protecting us from surveillance and tracking, I'm not aware of any popular formulations of this general principle other than Vint Cerf's.

Right now I think people are being forced to stable horses in their backyards, at the behest of landowners, and under the false premise that you need one for work.

> can we turn our back on entertaining, pleasurable technology that wastes our time to some extent, to allow natural physical life back in?

Yes we can. The decriminalisation of recreational drugs across the US and Europe signals a move towards recognising people's agency and restoring responsibility over individual lives. But the real problems with artifacts and systems of dependency lies not just with the individual, but in the social fabric around each of us. Most people cannot do it alone. Our tech addiction is societal, and we must collectively recognise the systems of abuse (I liken to big-tech companies to drug barons), pushing and insinuating unnecessary technology into our lives, if we are to use technology in a healthy way.

[1] https://digitalvegan.net

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/case-...

This comment ignores the plight of ADHD people who don’t really have the option of “choosing” not to be distracted.

I love it!

I suspect the retro metaphor 'do not disturb' action may feel weird to the young ones, but hits the spot for me. Taking the phone off the hook was a real technique to get yourself some guaranteed heads-down time when POTS was the thing.

I love these projects that use technology to manage some of the headaches with our technology-dominated world. To me, they feel artistic, and show there is a line where technology is useful, and where it is a burden.

The phone as just a switch is kind of weird, but there's potential here. Consider connecting things up so that, when talking on the phone, mobile or landline, notifications and chimes on the computer are deferred. Give full attention to the human you're talking to, without being interrupted by Discord, Slack, SMS, Messenger, email, web site push notifications, etc.

Probably a product in that.

This is a great idea, but I think that in the real world, you'd still have your phone on and on cellular, which then regrettably would defeat the purpose of a single kill switch like this one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com