[mr-wendel]

I think this kind of mentality can only be properly appreciated when you've attempted it for yourself. It's a lot of work, but I think that reclaiming the ability to better regulate your focus/attention is absolutely worth it.

It's honestly like quitting your drug of choice (e.g. even just coffee or alcohol) and observing the affect it has on you after using it again for a long time. Only in this case, there is no "upside" to these (forced) capitulations.

Advertising has become so entrenched that it acts as if it has absolute right to your hijack your attention, and this landscape respects no boundaries. Apple in particular drives me nuts doing the same thing: pitching their arcade or wifi hot-spot partnerships with absolutely no opt-out mechanism.

[danuker]

Do you mean regulating your own focus in face of ads?

Because it does not get better. As you begin to adapt to them, the ads change.

I find it intolerable that every high-end device comes with less control and more ads than ever before. Therefore I no longer buy such devices.

I am happy on my barebones Linux desktop and my second-hand Android phone that is not logged into anything - because I have control.

[mr-wendel]

> Do you mean regulating your own focus in face of ads?

Quite the opposite. I have really poor ability to tune them out, especially any audio portions. Once in front of me, they get under my skin easily and this isn't something I feel comfortable trying to just accept, despite how much "easier" it'd make things.

> Because it does not get better. As you begin to adapt to them, the ads change.

Agreed 100%, thus why zero tolerance is the only permissible option for me.

Here is a wager I don't wanna win: the "apps are constantly force-updated" world merges with the marketing world so that downtime is filled with ads. It's devilishly perfect: you're eagerly waiting to use the thing, so you're already a captive audience.