The reason for me is simple – gadgets and online presence wreak havoc on an ability to focus and concentrate. I miss childhood days when I could get lost in a book for a good half a day.
So this "no e-books" policy kinda ruined the analogy for me (I would love to have such a cafe nearby, but where I can read). But I get that it's not that easy to tell if it's a tablet or an e-book, and many e-books have browsers and the internet and a full-fledged Linux box inside, so there is no easy way to draw a line.
What's the broader idea behind No Screens Cafe? The article does a good job of describing the rules but not explaining the reasoning behind them.
It's all good, kind stranger.
> Just today, I [...] just to sit and read the book
That sounds wonderful!
> What's the broader idea behind No Screens Cafe?
It's the same idea behind what you did today. We have this surveillance-capitalist, engagement-hacked, infinitely-scrolling, always-on infotainment economy. It delivers info-drugs which hijack our motivation and reward system. (The drugs are getting stronger: Facebook was heroin, now Tiktok is fentanyl.) With access to these, it's hard to engage in other relaxing, enriching activities like books and conversation. We can create a refuge for these other activities, but the refuge needs to exclude the info-drug delivery mechanisms (mostly screens).
When writing the post, I was thinking that Uncle Jeff (Bezos) has root access to a lot of people's e-book readers. These gadgets deliver advertising, spy on their users, and sometimes act against the users' own interest (by e.g. revoking access to paid-for books that Amazon loses their license to distribute). You can also gaze at the internet on an e-book reader, so I thought these devices probably don't belong at No Screens Cafe.
Give me a shout if you ever find yourself in Tucson AZ. It would be fun to talk.