Use the internet as a reference only and otherwise avoid it, specifically social media, entirely.
I've already started and have already noticed how peaceful and calm the real world is all around me. And that's all that matters.
I've already started and have already noticed how peaceful and calm the real world is all around me. And that's all that matters.
What is it about the Internet that we want to get away from? What do we think is out there that would be "better"? It seems very hard to cut something so stimulating. Say we're on the Internet randomly browsing 4 hours a day. I don't think it's realistic to say we're going to do pushups/go for walks 4 hours a day every day. Weather, self-control, etc.
For people in a place where weather or the area is truly not conducive to walking/running/riding, a home setup is an option. Watching a show while on a stationary bike is a great option.
> The book is full of delights, but one of my favourite parts is the opening passage, four pages long, in which Rick Deckard and his wife Iran are arguing about the Penfield Mood Organ as they get up in the morning. The Mood Organ is a device with which, by punching in a number, a human user can instantly alter his or her mood. Deckard routinely sets it to have him get up in a cheerful mood, and advises his wife to do the same. Her objection to this is almost exactly the same as my objection above to sentimentality. Emotions need to be earned. She tells her husband that her mood organ schedule for the day includes a “six-hour self-accusatory depression” and when Deckard asks her why on Earth anyone would want to schedule that, she argues that it’s healthy to feel emotions that are congruent with the situation you find yourself in: in their case a poisoned and depopulated world. In fact, she tells him, she has programmed the organ to plunge her into despair twice a month.
>> “But a mood like that,” Rick said, “you’re apt to stay in it, not dial your way out…”
>> “I program an automatic resetting for three hours later,” his wife said sleekly. “A 481. Awareness of the manifold possibilities open to me in the future: new hope that—”
>> “I know 481,” he interrupted. He had dialed out the combination many times; he relied on it greatly.
> Without reproducing the whole passage, I can’t convey just how funny it is. Among the other settings they discuss are 888, “the desire to watch TV, no matter what’s on it” and 3, which stimulates the cerebral cortex into wanting to dial.
https://www.tor.com/2015/05/21/that-was-awesome-the-penfield...
For me, it has become overtly adversarial: rampant "advertising"/manipulation, pervasive use of dark patterns, content for the sake of content, and the bulk of discourse is overly pedantic/in bad faith. It's not so much about finding something out there that's "better", but more about removing activities from my life that are low or negative ROI, and the ROI of the content slot machine that is the internet I expect to fall even further with the advances in AI that ChatGPT is demonstrating.
If the OP weren't so far down the front page now, I would fully expect a reply along the lines of "Well that's not the internet's fault; it is just a tool and people are the problem [..]", or "Well unless you want to pay for content, advertising is required", or "Well why don't you create the community you want then? Be the change!". To continue with the investment analogy: this is why I avoid participating in online communities - the ROI for publishing a comment (or more) is low. At best, I can expect a few upvotes which feels quite hollow, and at worst, several comments patronising me or giving my comment the least charitable interpretation possible for Internet Smackdown Points. Yes I know, I left a comment on HN; you caught me in a weak moment :) I do like writing, putting some structure and physical form to my thoughts, but dealing with the conflict it can bring online is taxing - maybe too taxing.