[free_everybody]

Stop carrying your smartphone. Leave it at home. If you must because your family/work depends on you, then delete every app. Use your laptop as your main driver. If you need to, get a laptop with better battery life.

Start developing a personal philosophy of internet usage. Here is mine:

Category 3 [Abstain from completely] Reddit (Yes, all of reddit), Facebook ... Category 2 [Check once every couple days ~15 min total] Serious news sites (NYT, WashPo, WSJ) ... Category 3 [Check daily ~30 min total] Twitter (Follow helpful people only), HN, Medium

This article makes some really good points. Our media is becoming adversarial. Developing a time management plan is essential. I can't let my time fall victim to the system. I don't have enough to throw away.

[eckza]

I love this, I love this, I love this.

Right now, I am about a month along with no Facebook or Messenger. Previously I spent hours per day on both, running a pretty large community group and supporting its members. I disappeared; no explanation. Stress levels are down, I have so much more time to do things, and I have so much more attention for the things that really matter.

Anybody that needs me, has my phone number; and at least for now, SMS isn't a gamified platform (I'm looking at you, Snapchat).

Any social media apps (I compulsively install and uninstall Instagram a few times a week because on one hand, it's awesome; on the other hand, I end up putting too much time into it) have notifications disabled.

Getting an Apple Watch was the real game changer. Now, if my phone goes off, I don't even have to look at it or stop what I'm doing. I can decide whether or not to engage with the incoming notification without risking getting sucked into "being on my phone". With LTE, I can even leave the god damn phone in the car, at my desk, or in my locker at the gym without having to worry about missing an important call.

HN is my ground zero for everything and while it may be a little dangerous to only read news and articles that are posted on the same website, you all are pretty balanced and nuanced people from reasonably diverse backgrounds and worldviews, so I'm not that worried about it.

[greggman]

interesting. I would have thought a watch would be worse because it's basically a "hey, look at your phone alarm".

I spend too much time futsing around the internet but I have almost all notifications turned off. no Twitter notifications, no Facebook notifications, no Instagram notifications. I only have messenger like app notifications on.

[rootusrootus]

I have found my experience similar to the person you are responding to. With my Apple Watch I still see notifications, but I devote very little time to the interruption before dismissing most of it. It doesn't distract me long enough to derail my train of thought, and it is hard to get sucked into the Internet through the watch. I am working on tuning my notifications to just essentials, but even at full blast it has been a net win so far.

[ericd]

I found it still creates those addictive little dopamine hits that prevents you from really being able to easily disengage, slow down, and think deeply. It keeps the addiction alive. It's useful for times when you need to respond quickly to messages, emails, and such, like during big deals or launches, but otherwise, I throw my smart watch in the drawer in favor of a mechanical one. I also aggressively uninstall apps that attempt to grab my attention, rather than waiting for me to call on them. Couldn't be happier with these decisions.

[eckza]

That's what I told my wife for like 3 years (as she has been an Apple Watch day-one user). I finally caved and got one.

Everybody else that commented on this post beat me to the punch, more or less; but because I have to spend less mental energy digesting the notifications, it ends up being LESS of an interruption - not more.

You don't have to sit at dinner with your family, KNOWING that your phone buzzed, wondering whether it was an important work email, a text from your boss, or your dipshit best friend multi-texting you 30 photos of sick bikes that he wants to buy and / or thinks you should buy. ;)

[michaelt]

If I couldn't leave work for long enough to eat a dinner with my family, I would be diagnosing a different root cause and applying a different fix :)

[najra]

So you do end up reading those, just quicker than you would on your phone

[ozmbie]

I find the watch helps, because you distil your digital interactions down to a small number of important ones. Then go about your life without the constant pull of your phone nearby.

The new Series 3 LTE watch has enough battery to get me through the day. The only notifications I have enabled are messages, phone calls, and reminders.

I leave my phone at home but I'm still available for the important things.

[vram22]

>The only notifications I have enabled are messages, phone calls, and reminders.

>I leave my phone at home but I'm still available for the important things.

How do you reply to phone calls then? Via a public phone? Or do you not reply?

(I don't know about the capabilities of that watch, and whether you can call back on it.)

[wan23]

The Apple Watch can make and receive calls, though you might not want to talk to your wrist for an extended conversation as it can be kind of uncomfortable.

[Yhippa]

This ends up being the case for me for my Android Wear watch. The thing keeps vibrating and I am more tempted to check it out even while I'm in the presence of others. When the phone was in my pocket it took more effort and was a bigger gesture than it is to just furtively look down at my wrist and swipe a few things away.

[muzani]

Using a Fitbit here. I didn't buy it for the phone notifications but found it felt useful to focus. The real killer is not the calls but the other apps - email, shopping, Samsung.

A lot of deals come in from Facebook messenger for me, but I don't want to actually touch Facebook. The watch is really good at this too, and telling me who it's from.

[vvanders]

I love my Pebble for the same reason and I'm really dreading when they will become hard to come by. I already lost one Time Round to a swelling LiPo and nothing else has a similar form factor.

[letsgetphysITal]

Fitbit killed the original Pebble, or at least I couldn't get my Pebble connected reliably to my iPhone. Apple watch is a great upgrade.

[Angostura]

Certainly a few months ago, there were Time Rounds going on Amazon on clearance (refurb stock) I know, I got one cut price.

[caconym_]

I have been considering the Apple Watch with LTE for this reason. I don't want to supplement my phone; I want to largely replace it with something that's less intrusive and offers less potential for wasting time. Thanks for sharing your experience.

[PhasmaFelis]

> Previously I spent hours per day on both, running a pretty large community group and supporting its members. I disappeared; no explanation.

I'm glad you're feeling better, but I'm not sure why you'd choose to leave people in the lurch rather than even a brief message.

[idrios]

If I'm not wrong, the message would disappear after the person deleted their Facebook so for people to see it the parent would have needed to stay on Facebook long enough for people to see it (which is an easy way to get sucked back into staying)

[ardillaroja]

> reasonably diverse backgrounds and worldviews

Definitely agree with the rest of your comment. Not sure about this bit though, I love the HN community but I think we're a pretty homogenous bunch. I would guess a lot of us work in technology, relatively well-educated, relatively wealthy, left-leaning, english speaking etc.

Disclaimer: I've no data on this...

[Retric]

I generally think of HN as far right not far left. But, I think it's bias in how we react to things not HN.

Granted, not an American Republican party sounding board, but in terms of actual right and left political spectrum.

[asabjorn]

Much of our news media is currently designed to be sports-like, so if your goal is to be informed then this strategy is very wise. To make news more sports-like news channels like CNN offer generous pay to people that are willing to spout controversial cartoonish opinions on national news as explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pS4x8hXQ5c

It is very questionable if these controversial opinions are representative of anything except an antagonistic "other" that is similar to who we want our opposing political side to be, so that we don't have to actually spend the effort to speak together and find common ground. Generous pay would probably not be necessary if anything else was the case.

This way of avoiding civic discourse and not listen is in my opinion incredibly dangerous for our democracy, as the default state of a society is not a working democracy and you have to fight to keep it.

[free_everybody]

Great points.

If you stop consuming cable television and take a step back, you can see that pundit news shows and professional sports have so much in common. It's "right" vs "wrong", "red" vs "blue", "stupid" vs "smart", "weak" vs "strong", etc. There's a winner. There's a loser. You aren't a loser, are you? Don't forget to buy Doritos.

Since media isn't going way, we really need to create alternative systems that stimulate our empathy instead of our anger.

>...the default state of a society is not a working democracy and you have to fight to keep it.

That's something to think about.

[projektir]

> There's a winner. There's a loser. You aren't a loser, are you?

The whole world runs on this. If you catch it at the right time, you can avoid a lot of mental traps.

[mtobi]

The works of Alan Watts have been instrumental in providing me with a mental framework to notice exactly that kind of bamboozles, and many more. A lot of his ideas (or his intrepretations of others) seem to me like a straightforward cure for many of this information age ailments, I think a rehash for modern times is long overdue. I strongly recommend to look at least at a couple of essays of his, if only for the absolutely delightful prose.

[jackstraw14]

Took me 30 years to think I've finally kicked that bullshit. I'm still not sure.

[shostack]

Is there any international coverage of US news that follows a better format?

[confounded]

The closest I’ve found is Democracy Now (which is domestic). They make a one hour show Monday to Friday. It’s a little boring, but rather endearing. Admittedly I don’t watch it much.

[asabjorn]

I usually read books instead because new world events generally don’t seem to occur at a much greater frequency than the book publishing cycle.

[joshuahedlund]

I like The Economist (weekly print magazine)

[westmeal]

Us and them.

[asteli]

I nuked my Facebook entirely. I don't miss it. Took about 2 weeks to stop reflexively typing in "fa" in the address bar when bored.

Everyone worries about event discovery and getting invited to things. Turns out, the people that you actually care about (and who care about you) will tell you regardless.

Additionally, I suspect that I'm influencing my social circle toward using email for event coordination. Facebook's only selling point is the network, universal buy-in. When you break that, even in a small way, the value drops significantly.

[warent]

Yes, I've noticed this disturbing trend myself. I'm ashamed to admit there's been more than one time that I've closed Facebook, opened a new tab, and immediately navigated to Facebook. Of course, I take full personal responsibility for my behaviors, but this is definitely the result of intentional unconscious conditioning; it's made this way by design.

Now I use the "News Feed Eradicator" Chrome extension and no longer have that problem :)

[pandler]

News Feed Eradicator has seriously improved my day-to-day life in a noticeable way.

Enough useful social activity is contained on Facebook in the form of events and various pages that I have a hard time quitting it completely. I don't, however, get sucked into the bottomless pit of news feed anymore, and I don't miss it.

Checking facebook has gone from compulsive addiction to maybe once a few days, or "when I think of it" when I am helping organize events.

[kortex]

I have facebook locked-out on my phone. LastPass keeps it on only chrome desktop browsers with Newsfeed killer. I use uBlock (microBlock) to hide dumb residual elements, like Stories. Result is I can stay in touch with events and messages, without the toxic news feed.

Also, Reddit has a 20 minute timer on desktop. I use Adguard to block it on my phone, but I bounce between use and disuse like a junkie :p.

Initially it's hard as your brain screams for its old habits, but like all things, it adapts.

[eckza]

I replaced the physical location of the Facebook app on my phone with Pumped 3, a really fun BMX game that I love.

Every time I unconsciously tried to open FB, I ended up opening Pumped 3 instead, which snapped me out of my trance and made me realize - “hey, you’re about to waste time”.

Now, I am getting good at Pumped 3, and I spend way less time playing that than I did scrolling FB; and none of my attention is being monetized by a global media conglomerate. Win-win.

[imartin2k]

"Took about 2 weeks to stop reflexively typing in "fa" in the address bar when bored."

It's also quite useful that messenger.com has its own domain. So one can abstain from facebook.com and still stay connected.

[QML]

I don’t think smartphones are the main issue here — problem is people can’t delay gratification.

I’m sure if we ran the Marshmellow experiment again, a higher proportion of people won’t be able to wait.

Among my peers, I’m noticing an inability to study continuously for more than 30 minutes; even in my friend group, a couple can’t watch a whole movie without checking their phones.

However, keeping your smartphone at home in my opinion is a non optimal solution. My recommendation is to specially allot a time for checking your phone and reading the news; and forcing yourself to work on a single task otherwise.

[analog31]

Amusing anecdote: I started college in 1982, and couldn't study continuously for more than 30 minutes. Still can't. I've gotten to where I am in my career -- for better or worse -- with virtually zero attention span. There are some exceptions: I can concentrate on math or programming for hours.

[terminalcommand]

I found that if I distract myself enough, I can start doing a task and the time just flies.

Currently my solution is to listen to classical music full volume. That way I can concentrate 1-1.5 hours a day.

On the other hand I too can focus without any problems when I'm programming. The problem is that I'm studying law :/.

[tonyedgecombe]

problem is people can’t delay gratification

If you accept that is the case then you shouldn't be surprised when people look for a working solution such as leaving their phone at home.

forcing yourself to work on a single task otherwise

Which clearly doesn't work for many or maybe even most people.

[acobster]

I agree with you on some level, but tech has no small part to play in this phenomenon. It's not just the presence of the technology itself, it's the technology's essential design and purpose. The article's thesis, as I see it, opposes your point head-on:

> That kind of rhetoric implicitly grants the idea that it’s okay for technology to be adversarial against us. The whole point of technology is to help us do what we want to do better. Why else would we have it? ... I don’t think personal responsibility is unimportant. I think it’s untenable as a solution to this problem ... It’s not realistic to say you need to have more willpower. That’s the very thing being undermined!

[csharpminor]

I have a similar strategy and highly recommend Self Control App: https://github.com/SelfControlApp/selfcontrol/

Once I started blocking sites from myself I realized I was reflexively jumping over to distraction sites, particularly when I felt stuck or discouraged. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that willpower is the only way to get more focused. Use software to level the playing field.

Another thing that's helped: placing my phone on the other side of the room to charge at night. I also have a strict no using tech while in bed rule. Waking up and checking Instagram/Twitter/News on a phone is a terrible way to start the day.

[zmb_]

For me it was very useful to understand that there are three things that need to coincide for an action to occur: 1) motivation, 2) ability, 3) trigger. Remove any one of them and the action won't occur.

When trying to get rid of undesired actions, many people (and guides) focus on the first one -- willpower. But that is the most fickle and difficult one to attack. It is much more effective to attack the other two: remove the ability (multiple layers of blocking certain websites, for example) and the trigger (identify the trigger and either find ways to avoid it or reprogram it by internalizing if-X-then-Y behaviors where X is the trigger).

This also works for building desired actions: make it as easy as possible to take the action, and program triggers to start them.

[013a]

StayFocused on the Chrome App Store is another great one, and a bit easier to install.

[tjridesbikes]

I used to use SelfControl, but once I figured out how it blocks sites, it stopped being as useful. Don't fall victim to your inner Software Engineer and try to figure out how it works!

[free_everybody]

Hey thanks for the tip. Just installed Self Control App to block Reddit. I love that it's open sourced.

[dredmorbius]

Whilst I largely agree (and follow) the suggestions here, I take extreme exception to providing this sort of response as a solution to the problem.

We're living in a world in which, individually and atomically, our willpower is being tested against AI-driven, algorithmic, electronic colossi whose own goal-seeking behaviour is to maximise demands on our attention. And the systems mentioned -- smartphones, the Internet, email, messaging systems, even specific platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, are increasing less optional luxury choices and far more necessary, if not for transacting all life, then at least significant portions of it.

The bottom-up response doesn't scale or work, and it fails to address the consequences of the behaviours of others who do not, or can not, follow the advice.

I've spent much of the past year occupied with studying the history of media, communications, and the interactions they have with society. And those impacts are absolutely massive. The printing press, cheap paper, mass literacy, high-speed printing, telegraph, radio (and its very strong co-evolution with fascism and Nazism, as well as other populist political cults), had absolutely disruptive effects, and not at all uniformly in a good way.

Which is to say that the Internet giants, and Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon specifically, are toying with our fundamental social and cultural infrastructure whilst externalising massive costs and risks.

One school of thought, and it's gaining credible voices by the day, demands regulation.

A growing question I'm developing is whether, or what, changes are absolutely inevitable, and how our tomorrows won't look in the least like our yesterdays. Professor Stuart's "Slaughterbots" video plays on a similar, and very closely related theme, and suggests a level of potential impact I suspect is of roughly similar magnitude.

[xster]

Corporate media like NYT and WashPo etc that writes things like you must be crazy to not believe there are WMDs in Iraq are not serious news sites. Rich != serious. And hegemonic news smearing all sources of independent journalism and grassroot progressive political movements is just about the opposite of the point of this article.

[jmcgough]

Like them or not, the NYT and WashPo do some of the best, factual investigative journalism in the world. Have they been wrong? Sure. But they have extremely high standards for publishing a story, so you can generally assume that they're accurate. They also are the ones who break a lot of the biggest, most impactful stories.

I think a better criticism of them would be wash po turning a blind eye to Bezos and others that have influence of it.

[rorykoehler]

They practice the worst type of disinformation. Correct most of the time but when it really counts they publish incorrect propaganda (eg wmds in Iraq).

[briga]

Care to name any large news publications that don't do this? I can't think of any.

[kaendfinger]

Breitbart has an interesting theory on this: Present your bias, and admit your publication has a world view, because even NPR has a world view.

Nobody is unbiased, so stop trying to be unbiased, and present how you see it. Then, a real reader will go to multiple "view points" and gather their own opinion.

[confounded]

But this isn’t novel; anyone who’s read a few different newspapers in the same week (a “real reader”, in your words) can easily get a feel for differences in editorial ‘bias’/agenda between news organizations.

The problem is that being a “real reader” has a time and attention cost, and it’s relatively boring compared to picking a circle of political reality stars, and gorging on “hot takes” and outrage.

[xster]

+1. I do wish NPR is fully publicly funded and gets some degree of medium term immunity from the current legislative and executive branch (media as a fourth branch of government / res publica?).

Now it's just a mouth piece for rich donors but has 'public' in its name for marketing.

[Angostura]

In other words, they occasionally screw-up.

[timtas]

WaPo and NYT can be counted on to amplify every rush to war and every expansion of the suveylance state. This is where the assumption of accuracy turn insidious.

[SamPatt]

>they have extremely high standards for publishing a story, so you can generally assume that they're accurate

Dangerous assumption for any given story. Skepticism always warranted.

[specialist]

Maybe. I tried WashPost. Mostly to pay for my news. Hated it. Mostly because of the format. Wasted too much of my time. If they adopted a HN or RSS reader style, I’d try it again.

[drdrey]

And when they make factual errors, they publish errata

[xster]

Technically legal https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/930510825617543173 is the name of the game. Smear than obscurely retract is the news of 2016.

[croon]

Why are you linking twitter screenshots about something relating to buzzfeed?

[xster]

Maybe another way I'd frame the issue is that there are 2 orthogonal themes.

1, whether the structural incentives of the institution is altogether aligned with the interests of the common working people (http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...) or with the financial elites (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/cia-funded-washington-pos...), and

2, whether the publication follows scientific rigor to produce in-depth factual investigations (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malp...)

It sounds like you're mainly addressing the second theme (i.e. they're less prone to just making things up). Though I'd argue they're not 'serious' institutions on both fronts.

On the one hand, they're less likely to even attempt to enter into discussion about whether to think about starting to investigate the types of stories that are detrimental to the elite consensus (When's the last time WaPo wrote about the 99% or DAPL or TiSa or had an opinion about this last $700 billion pentagon budget?). The same way how political bribes work. We think politicians get bribed to vote a certain way. It's way way too late by that point. Politicians get bribed to stop items from entering into the agenda for select committees so it'll never reach any assemblies for votes.

On the other hand, though large multi-month investigative journalism pieces correlate strongly with the wealth of the institutions that publish them, large scoped journalistic rigor isn't somehow exclusive to corporate media. Medium sized institutions like The Intercept (before they got influential and turned corporate) and fair.org produces many well researched articles corporate media will never get into.

No one is saying corporate media don't employ disciplined honest journalists who produces quality work. In fact, I strongly believe everyone who goes to work for NYT and WaPo do so because they want to productively contribute and be a force of good for society. What I'm saying is those journalists don't get promoted or get fired like Phil Donahue while journalists who understand the game and self censor and don't get carried away with independent thought get airtime.

[tallanvor]

>When's the last time WaPo wrote about the 99% or DAPL or TiSa or had an opinion about this last $700 billion pentagon budget?

They write about the 99% pretty much daily. You can start by looking at healthcare coverage.

They published articles concerning DAPL as recently as November 16 (plus more recent ones on Keystone XL and the ANWR drilling).

The Trade in Services Agreement process has been very secretive, and unless they get sources, there's not a lot they can actually report. The last I know of any leaks about the process was in 2016, so I'm not sure it's fair to criticize Washington Post for not having more information about it this year.

Pentagon Budget - again, an article specifically about it on November 16, others that included mention of it more recently.

Basically you're making claims that are pretty easy to debunk.

[Super_Jambo]

WaPo is very good at publishing about everything. To extract sentiment you have to actually read their articles & see what they bother to put above the fold.

They published plenty of "negative" stories about Clinton during the primaries. Except if you read the stories in detail at publication time you'll see they downplay the negative story. Getting out ahead of the story and presenting it in the best light.

Grandfather comment has really set you up an excellent strawman to knock down there.

[wfo]

They cover these issues, yes, but always with a specific purpose and intent. Let's consider a case study, this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/upshot/bernie-sanders-wen...

They covered a tour Sanders did about healthcare in Canada, and used it as an opportunity to spout ideological tripe slamming universal healthcare and Sanders himself.

Even the first line is a weaselly backhanded attack on Sanders. Then,

>Now he wants to make Americans fall in love with his proposal to make the United States system a lot more like Canada’s.

This is an absurd thing to say if you did your homework and know that a strong majority of Americans already support a single payer system like Canada's. However it is not an absurd thing to say if you want your reader to walk away believing Americans just aren't ready for it.

What follows is an entire section attacking Sanders for being popular because he advocates for popular political positions(how dare he?). Then their description of his bill is right out of a right-wing rag

>His Medicare-for-All bill includes free care as a central feature. If the legislation became law, no American would pay directly for a doctor, dentist or hospital visit, and co-payments for prescription drugs would be limited. (Taxpayers would, of course, finance the system.)

Indeed, you would get all of this stuff for free at taxpayer expense in a snarky parenthetical as if to suggest "you wouldn't really want to pay for others would you?" Ignoring that we already pay more for worse healthcare than any country, and that the bill would save trillions in taxpayer money.

An entire section on waiting times for non-critical procedures a common tactic for attacking universal healthcare -- ignore waiting times in the US, talk about how people have to wait in the other system and write "for non-critical procedures" in the smallest print possible so you're technically not lying. They never ask the actual explicit question: should you be able to jump the line and get your nosejob a week early, kicking a poor person with cancer out of line so they die because you have more money?

Then they cite a study that correctly assess the US healthcare system as the worst among developed countries, but it notes that Canada's is only 9th out of 11th -- doesn't look so bad now does it?! -- ignoring the fact that countries 1-10 (with universal healthcare) were ranked pretty close together, and the distance between the US and the 10th is double the distance between the 1st and 10th.

Then a series of more blatant incorrect claims without evidence about the medicare for all bill in particular.

Then the icing on the cake -- a section about how "Americans don't care about fairness or healthcare", with strong evidence this time! No, wait, their only evidence is that the Republicans control the government. Hmm. Let's look a little deeper:

>In the United States, though, Republicans control the presidency and the Congress, and many candidates last year ran on a promise to roll back government support for health care coverage.

Oh, I see. People only vote based on healthcare now. And not liking a failed overly complicated Obamacare system that forces people to buy bad private insurance is the same is disliking universal healthcare, but the article already stated universal healthcare has strong majority support...

It's almost as if someone has an agenda to portray America as a right-wing country whose people care mostly about the interests of the rich to their readers, who happen to be the rich...

This is just one article. NYT puts out hundreds of these ideological hit pieces with a shallow veneer of objective reporting every week. The amount of human labor put into this propaganda is staggering.

Wapo is even worse. Jeff Bezos did not buy it expecting to make a profit. They have rarely criticized Bezos or Amazon since the purchase. They 'fact-checked' a statement by Sanders where he describes the amount of wealth Bezos has and agree the statement is objectively correct. But it did not fit in with their ideology, so of course they rated it a 'lie'.

If this is what 'coverage' looks like, I'll pass. Reading wapo or nyt as a person on the left is what reading Breitbart feels like to a center-right Democrat or Republican nyt/wapo reading neoliberal.

[hyperdunc]

I see two major problems with sites like NYT and WaPo:

1. There is important news they choose not to cover, especially for political reasons. (The news they do cover is usually of better quality than most.)

2. Their opinion pieces are frequently poorly thought out.

[drvdevd]

Before I jumped back on Hacker News here, I browsed Twitter. I set a timer for 7 minutes. I closed the window after 7 minutes. It was slightly painful as it was just enough time for me to get interested.

Hacker News is not perfect either, but I consider it generally healthier than Twitter now.

This all reminds me of when I used to be a smoker and had to use psychological tricks or less harmful alternatives to curb cravings.

The good news is: I eventually quit.

[devmunchies]

> Reddit (Yes, all of reddit) ... Twitter (Follow helpful people only)

I swap those. I only follow a few helpful subreddits to pick up things that don't make it to HN and I don't use twitter.

[vlunkr]

I was going to say this. The most useful parts of Reddit are way more useful that the most useful parts of twitter imo. And if you only visit once a day or week, you can sort by the top posts in that range. With twitter, you kind of have to be there all the time to see the good stuff.

[free_everybody]

If that works for you, then cheers. I get so sucked into Reddit's front page that I just need to avoid it all entirely. With Twitter, I'm less inclined to explore.

[rootusrootus]

Best thing I ever did with reddit was to subscribe to the subreddits that are useful to me and then never ever go to the front page again.

[dionidium]

If you don't do this then it's like you bought a TV that was programmed to only show you the most popular channels. And then you never manually changed the channel yourself.

So, sure, that would obviously suck. You have to change the channel.

[vile]

I've found the personalized frontpage has been okay since I've unsubscribed from all the junk default subs and only subbed to useful/interesting ones.

[jholman]

What's a "front page"?

[Sagittary]

The Reddit front page is simply reddit.com. It shows the most upvoted content from all the subreddits you are subscribed to. Alternatively the most popular ones from the standard subreddits if you don't have an account.

[enraged_camel]

I carry my smartphone with me but I keep it on DND most of the time unless I'm expecting a call or an email.

That way I get the best of both worlds: lack of constant interruptions and the ability to use important features such as maps, camera, etc. when I need.

[jmcgough]

I always keep mine on DND, but I find that I impulsively check news sites and social media. It puts me in this constant state of never really being bored, so I'm less likely to pursue new and interesting things (reading books, practicing hobbies, exploring new interests).

[mjevans]

My smartphone is used mostly for the combination of checking emails (if necessary sending a quick reply that I'll follow up on later), and predominantly as a portable entertainment device.

I have setup SOME trusted contacts (mostly family, skilled coworkers who understand decorum) to pierce the DnD veil.

[StanislavPetrov]

Been a techie for more than three decades. Never saw the appeal in a smartphone or social media. I don't understand the fascination in broadcasting all of your personal information to the world (both via facebook and via wi-fi from your "smartphone") at all times. We all have desktops and laptops, why the need for a smartphone? I'd be willing to wager that I enjoy my leisurely train ride with my newspaper and my coffee far more than people who have their face glued to their phones. I believe there is more value in talking to a friend or a family member that you haven't seen in several months to catch up, rather than to be spammed daily with the inconsequential details of their lives (and they with yours). And god forbid you send a letter through snail mail! Life should be like a good meal or a fine wine, consumed slowly, thoughtfully, and with enjoyment.

[hsuresh]

I like (and do follow) your suggestion. However, i disagree on Twitter. Twitter is a cacophony of misinformation, misquotes, comments taken out of context, and or responses to really fringe & stupid opinions.

[alanfalcon]

It truly depends on who you follow (and who they follow, lately).

[xab9]

Yep, but occasionally "normal" people go nuts, people with tech tweets start to talk about their newborn child or a sick dog (with pictures of course), not to mention a rare political rant from someone you wouldn't expect it from. Maybe I followed the wrong bunch, who knows.

[donw]

I still carry my smartphone, but have disabled all app notifications, and removed anything that isn't a tool or a direct text messaging app.

No Twitter, no Facebook, no Snapchat, etc.

It's amazing how much happier I became after doing that.

[listic]

I'm not talking about voice calling tremendously simplifying meetups, since this is not a smartphone feature. But how about navigation? I really wouldn't like to go back to the time without navigation.

[int_19h]

It's rather telling that you say "delete every app", but you really mean "delete every social media app" (for many people, these are, indeed, equivalent).

[suprfnk]

Yeah. I'm not about to delete the app I use to generate background noise when the people in my office are being too loud. Or the app in which I track my weightlifting progress. Or the app I use to digitize and archive all important letters I receive. Or any of these kinds of apps.

The difference is, these aren't time wasting apps. I couldn't waste hours in my fitness tracker or digitizing important letters.

Remove all time wasting apps. Keep functional apps. The smartphone is a great tool if used right.

[xab9]

Imo facebook is not that bad if you unfollow everyone and everything. A hassle at first, but whenever you add someone (because he or she is only willing to use facebook or communicates via a group, like a trainer, a tutor or a teacher), just automatically press unfollow. I usually check if someone tried to message me once or twice a week, but ymmv.

[em3rgent0rdr]

I'm an aggressive unfollower. Too much clickpait, virtue signaling, feel-good meaningless inspirational quotes, suspect sources, self-promotion, etc., and I unfollow.

[bhollan]

Did no one else notice?: Category 3.... Category 2.... Category 3....

Am I taking crazy pills??!?!

But in all seriousness, this is a fantastic idea. I'm wondering though if it's 100% of a "personal preference" which platforms go in which categories. For example, I keep in touch with family/friends over Facebook, and I find twitter to be too noisy to truly lose myself in enjoyment. But in all honesty, I should probably actually _focus_ on spending more time in twitter in my field for networking.

I love the analogy of a DoS attack though. (now I just have to figure out how to explain a DoS attack to all my friends)

[kkylin]

Great advice! And I absolutely agree with the idea that this list is highly personal -- for me, I can't spend more than a few minutes on FB per week w/o feeling like it's a complete waste of time (I only have the acct to receive various announcements related to things I do). But NYT & HN are big time sinks for me. Especially since I always learn something, so it doesn't feel like a waste of time, per se, but does get in the way of actually getting stuff done. (I think PG has an essay on this.)

[thanatropism]

My Chromebook runs a copy of emacs with my org-mode and I love the ergonomics of the near-tablet sized/weighted, full keyboard style. But: if I walk with that under my arm (I walk to work!) I'm going to get it robbed.

For some reason, street thugs care much less about cell phones. Too hard to visualize from safe distance whether you have a latest model or a quad-chip cheapo.

[intrasight]

The smartphone is no problem at all. Hardly anybody "calls" anymore, and the only time I look at the thing is when I'm sitting on the crapper (and in that case I'd say I'm not wasting time but multitasking). It could be because I was very late to the smartphone party and never got addicted.

[KozmoNau7]

I stuck with my feature phone for years, and only had to replace it with a smartphone when I dropped it and broke the screen. There weren't any usable non-smartphone alternatives, so I bit the bullet and got a smartphone. After originally going completely app-crazy and installing just about everything, I'm on my second smartphone now, with ~10 apps installed over the stock LineageOS lineup, and a home screen that looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/6CndpKw.png?1

I only have the most necessary apps installed, such as Firefox, Spotify, Messenger and couple of others, no social media. Google Calendar and Gmail are still there, but I'm working to move to a different email provider and find a different calendar solution.

[rdiddly]

Yeah same here, although it's not so much that I was late to it, as it was late getting to me. In other words I was born early. In other words I'm older. Smartphones came along after I'd already lived a few decades without them. So there was never any question whether I could get along without one.

[dionidium]

> Serious news sites (NYT, WashPo, WSJ) ... Category 3 [Check daily ~30 min total]

My suggestion: don't visit these sites at all. Instead, get your local daily delivered. You don't need the news up to the last minute. A daily summary is fine. Plus, it gets you away from your computer while you read it.

[dgwight]

On an iPhone you can see how much time you spend with each app open in the last week. (Go to the Battery section and toggle the clock button).

I think I’m going to start keeping a log to help be more conscious of this.

In the last week, I’ve had 28 hours total screen time. My top 3 are MiniHack 8.8 hrs, Safari 7.5hrs, and Reddit 3.6hrs

[intended]

Another option is to get a dumb phone.

[superkuh]

Yup. My ancient nokia works for me. All it does is make voice calls, send/receive texts, and last for a week on a charge (when left on 24/7).

I carry it turned off and turn it on if I really need to make a call or expect someone to contact me.

[CrystalLangUser]

I agree, but not with all of reddit. You can follow only helpful subs just like you can only follow helpful people or read HN.. there's a difference between normal reddit and say /r/clojure, etc.

[H1Supreme]

Totally agree. There are plenty of good subs on reddit.

[pbkhrv]

It's a firewall for attention. One day somebody will build an app like that for AR glasses.

[dingo_bat]

Most days, I use my phone in ultra power saving mode. Only whatsapp, sms, phone, and the internet browser is available. And the battery life is phenomenal. 10% literally gives me 24 hour standby time. Oh and I can whitelist maps if I need to. My only issue is uber, which is accessible only in normal mode and has no alternative when I need a cab.

[rimliu]

Or just be responsible for what you are doing. No need in ditching your phone, Facebook or Reddit. If one is not capable of weeding out the non-productive things on smartphone I am sure he will be able to fill his day with other useless things not requiring one.

[intrasight]

Abstain from Facebook? For me, that's like saying "abstain from talking to your friends". Why would you choose to be so antisocial? Besides that, your other suggestions match my usage.

What I am trying to do with FB is treat it like talking to my friends on the phone - which I would not do during the workday other than by exception. I thought that I could do this with self-control but I have not succeeded. So I think that I am going to have to add time filters to my router configuration.

[KozmoNau7]

I've come to the conclusion that I cannot cut out Facebook completely. It's simply too good of a tool, for keeping up to date on bands I like, upcoming concerts and similar events. But I have unliked, unfollowed and hidden as many time wasters as I possibly can, to pare down my FB experience to the basics. I am very vigilant in hiding any that still happen to pop up due to being shared by friends. If someone shares too much junk, I either unfollow them or (in extreme cases) unfriend them completely.

I have noticed often that I go on Facebook, check up on an event invitation, take a look at the news feed and think "meh, there's nothing interesting". That is a good thing in the context of Facebook.

I have also uninstalled the FB app from my phone, to slightly increase the effort needed to go there, since I have to open my browser and go to facebook.com. It's a tiny thing that makes a huge difference.

[thanatropism]

You'd think Tumblr is better for following up on new artists (painters etc.) but it isn't.

I have an alt facebook for looking at artists. But frankly I wish the kind of stuff I enjoy (mostly asemic writing and related) was on reddit or tumblr. The facebook interface isn't good for looking at art.

[KozmoNau7]

Maybe in an ideal world, Tumblr would be better. However Facebook has much higher penetration, so it's the defacto site of choice.

[thanatropism]

www.messenger.com is an official interface to fb messenger that mimics the mobile apps. Doesn't load up the timeline, etc.

Most of my friends are on FB messenger but I never look at facebook itself.