We have had an ongoing moral panic about screentime for about a decade. Screentime is so broad and vast it now covers anything from chatting with your grandma to get her spaghetti recipe to playing WoW nonstop in your underwear to learning how to code on Youtube to make yourself better and more productive to using a Peloton bike to workout.
The youngest generation has it the worst with helicopter parents sitting over their kids shoulders, filling their lives with activities to "keep them off screens". Yet the kids themselves never learn how to set their own limits or navigate free time. We fail to prepare for independence as actual adults, and just create a lot of anxiety and shame around screens themselves.
Yeah I don't understand what am I supposed to do the rest of my time.
Stare at the TV all evening like my parents do? Read a book? I already do that on the train, and it's also staring at something while sitting down. Cooking/exercise/chores? I already do that, and still have hours of time left over. Stare at the wall maybe?
If there's one thing I hate, is other people preaching to you about how you should spend your time.
Before the internet - I’m old enough to remember those days - we hung out more. People conversed and engaged in banter and whatnot. You could hang out for hours with friends. Kids especially were outside a lot more than now. As a kid we found ways to amuse ourselves. You’d spontaneously go to someone’s house and if they were there then hangout. If not you’d walk or bike around until you found some kids to play with. We played kickball in the streets. I never see kids playing in the streets in the U.S. (I grew up in the Canal Zone.).
No one I know shows up to a friends house on a whim or unannounced. It’s all planned activities and the art of conversation has died in the U.S. We are social creatures and the solitary nature of being online has an unhealthy, anti-social side effect.
> No one I know shows up to a friends house on a whim or unannounced. It’s all planned activities and the art of conversation has died in the U.S. We are social creatures and the solitary nature of being online has an unhealthy, anti-social side effect.
100% agreed. I think it's actually the true underlying cause of the political fracturing we've seen in America (and are starting to see elsewhere as it filters out).
It's also the biggest difference I've noticed since moving to Ireland. People still sometimes show up unannounced, just to see if you're home and want to chat, especially in more rural areas; plus, you have the pub culture where people go and just have a drink and a chat. It's not great, because drinking is expected (though thankfully alcohol free options have come a long way) but it's much better than what exists in America.
I actually worry messenger apps like Discord make this worse, because you can just get a facsimile of human interaction online, and it's nowhere near the real thing; in fact, it can't be, because it won't trigger our brain the same way as seeing facial expressions, etc., does. Even more, I worry that as chatbots get better, we're going to see this trend get even worse as people turn to chatbots (and/or companies start shoving them in front of us). I can't see things getting better with the current state of the internet.
In recent years I've been slowly reverting to 80s me, where as you say, we just hung out. (Mid 90s was when the idea of keeping in touch with friends online instead of in person started creeping in for me, initially via ICQ and AIM.)
It's just better. 1980s mode (having a couple of good friends I spend a lot of time in person with) is better than 2020s mode (having hundreds or thousands of online "friends" who I'm not really that close to). I just find it more fulfilling to interact with people in meatspace.
Yeah, we hung out more...if we had people to hang out with and got along.
I was from the rural edges of a metro area in the 90s. My main interests at 6 years old were programming, astronomy (particularly star classification systems), video games, and child development. There were no people like me around; the internet made me more social (and more socially adept) than I otherwise would have been. My parents are socially stunted because they spent 40+ years of their lives being unable to be themselves with anyone other than their spouse, siblings, my dad's parents and their children because they were routinely mocked.
We need to be careful not to be blinded by nostalgia glasses. There were some benefits to the old way of doing things, but there were substantial drawbacks as well, particularly for those who were out of step with their local community.
We hung out more, too, but that's because we were young and had fewer responsibilities. Now we're old and a bunch of us have kids or parents to take care of, jobs with varying hours, and we often had to move for our or our spouses' jobs.
We can bemoan these facts but I don't think it's accurate to blame screens or the internet. If anything the internet has made it easier to stay in touch despite the aforementioned life changes.
i dont know about you but we mostly did this because we were bored as fuck.
plus dangerous behaviours like drinking, smoking, fighting with other kids, setting trash on fire, destroying property, stealing, an generally being a menace to society.
i think playing a bit of vidya is a god alternative outlet, and it can be just as social.
but i always admired the culture in the us where random ppl would strike up a conversation with you.
if someone did that over here i would expect to get scammed, robbed or both.
The boredom caused us to be more social and to actively seek out people with whom to engage with. The isolation that the internet causes and the lack of walkability that is caused by a car centric culture are not good for us as a species.
I didn’t have a cell phone until 2015. One time while teaching class at a community college my students found out that I didn’t have a cell phone. They asked me what I would do if my car broke down since I couldn’t call anyone. I told them I would walk to the nearest house and ask to use their phone. One student said, “I never would have thought of that.”. Another asked if I would be afraid of getting shot. American society has become anti-social and its very unhealthy that this is so.
I would argue it cannot be as social, even if you're talking to people. You won't ever get half the social cues that come from actual social interaction, nor the firing of mirror neurons that comes when people talk face-to-face, etc.
In fact, Turkle makes a good argument that online communication is destroying empathy among a whole generation of kids, and they don't even know how to really communicate in person with another human being anymore, nor any idea of social manners, etc. Having taught secondary school for five years, I can't agree more with her conclusions.
Ideally you would produce something instead of consuming it. Maybe music, woodworking, painting, writing, etc... Easier said than done, after having that insight years ago it has been on my to-do list permanently and yet here I am on the screen... After producing for 8 hours at work it is pretty hard to muster up the energy to produce things for myself in the evenings.
> Ideally you would produce something instead of consuming it.
Why? I'm already "producing" a big part of my day. This "always be producing" mentality is more harmful than making time to relax, enjoy yourself in non-productive ways.
You're right, there's a place for both active leisure and passive leisure. The problem I have is that our jobs rob us of the energy we need for active leisure, so we just end up doing passive leisure 100% of the time which I think is way out of balance.
> The problem I have is that our jobs rob us of the energy we need for active leisure, so we just end up doing passive leisure 100% of the time which I think is way out of balance.
I don't know what the ratio is between active and passive leisure. Nor do I know for sure that people generally have more leisure time now than ever before, but I do suspect that is the case.
But I do know that there are many companies that one might consider to be in the "active leisure industry" and that are profitable.
It's false that people now have more leisure time, in fact we have less than ever before.
For most of human history we were hunter gatherers. We know from the field of anthropology that people in hunter gatherer tribes "work" about 30 hours a week - but their work consists of things we consider leisure like hunting, fishing, hiking, and building things with friends (ever spend a weekend helping a buddy build a deck?).
Hell, even medieval surfs had more free time than us. Planting and harvesting seasons certainly had some full workdays but other than that... lots of time off. You know all those feasts in the Catholic church? Yeah, they got all those off. Kind of like how government workers get all the extra holidays off like MLK and Columbus day. A medieval surf's PTO puts an average American's PTO (0 days by law!) to shame.
If you compare our current amount of free time to the free time of a Dickensian orphan working in a factory at the turn of the 20th century then yes, it seems like we have it pretty good. But compared to 95% percent of human history, we work way more time at our stupid jobs than any other humans in history.
> It's false that people now have more leisure time, in fact we have less than ever before.
This chart and supporting material argue that over the last 150 years annual working hours per worker drastically declining. That lets me believe that leisure time is increasing. https://ourworldindata.org/working-more-than-ever
I am not comparing our current leisure time to the time we had at the beginning of the industrial revolution and onward. We probably do have more free time than we did 150 years ago. I'm comparing our leisure time to the leisure time we had before agriculture was invented - that's why studying hunter gatherer tribes is so interesting. These also happens to be the conditions we evolved for.
That's another aspect of the screen time shaming mentioned above, a lot of those production hobbies use screens! If you want to record and share music with your friends, you'll be looking at a screen for quite some time. Are these people harming themselves by producing and recording music? Of course not nobody would suggest so, but that's the outcome when people eagerly suggest near zero screen time.
Also there's the other factor where we have this insane obsession with producing at all times. Producing for work. Producing for multiple side hustles. Producing with our hobbies. It's as if they're trying to speedrun a complete burnout, not just with work but with relationships and life itself. Some people really do need a reminder that it's ok to relax, to consume, to observe, to waste time with people you love.
Basically what I'm saying is more people should find the balance that works for them and question whether their current general routine makes them happy. I reckon for a lot of people, the difference doesn't really come down to screen time or production vs consumption, but an active choice to be doing whatever it is they are planning to do.
I mean if you read books, cook, and exercise, you're ahead of the game so perhaps the "spend less time online" advice doesn't apply to you. The average American doesn't do any of those things very often. They are however increasingly online all the time.
Personally I don't think online time is something that needs to be limited but social media and news consumption, absolutely.
I also think socializing online is a poor substitute for doing it face-to-face.
> Yet the kids themselves never learn how to set their own limits.
Some do, some don't. My 2nd grader is happy to self regulate. My 4th grader will however spend 12-14 hours/day online and as the screentime accrues, become more likely to annoy, torment, and eventually act violently in response to perceived transgressions.
We're otherwise a no tv, no videogame console, no tablets house. Not because we've decided not to have these things, but because a half-a-day binge has resulted in a kiddo rage-destroying the device at some point and not having the broken device any longer is a natural consequence to that behaviour.
So no, I dont think all kiddos can typically learn to self regulate. The existence of some kiddos self regulating is not evidence that all of them can or that even the ones who can't are somehow "broken." Screens are a new tech and we're still learning the cultural-social technologies to interact with them healthily.
Thank you for making this point. Not all kids are created equal. They all have varying traits, tendencies and idiosyncrasies. It is sheer madness to try to put 'one size fits all' form to it. You might be able to offer some guidance or even best practices, but even those have to be actually tested against the kid to see how they respond. Anecdotally, my siblings and me were very different and responded differently to praise and punishment.
FWIW, I do think there is something damaging about screen time especially if it is just passive consumption ( brain is a muscle; if it unused, it will grow weak ) so I am personally trying to limit it. I already spend so much time with it at work ( and until recently, at school ). I do allow myself some guilty pleasures, but I treat those similarly to the way I treat ice cream or sake. It is something of holiday from reason.
edit: HN is probably a giant exception to that. It seems I spend a lot of time here. Maybe I can rationalize it as 'HN is not guilty pleasure? I get to argue with people over stuff I normally would not?'
I guess my main point is that the main responsibility lies with the parents and it kinda sucks, because at least 'in my days' my parents didn't have giant corporations working on keeping my kids glued to their device. All I had to deal with is arcade addiction.. and that.. my parents solved ( with me crying all the way ).
> with the kids themselves never learning how to set their own limits or prepare for independence as actual adults
To some extent this is not how parenting works. This is like giving heroin to an addict and letting them learn to set their own limits unattended.
In practice, supervising addiction helps control it. Kids need some kind of supervision. It's much harder to get a kid to reduce screentime if they're used to unlimited screentime.
I would caution against thinking that your successful outcome with unrestricted internet access as a kid justifies a laissez-faire attitude towards children accessing the Internet.
I think some people have a better ability to self regulate than others, and you are likely one of those people. Additionally, your online experience didn’t have “the algorithm”. There really does seem to be something addicting about modern short form content and it seems quite different from the content found on the early Web.
More like 100k since 2008. This is my tenth account or so.
That’s the point; unless you’re saying that everyone with high karma is mentally unsound (which may or may not be a fair argument), being constantly online doesn’t seem to have much negative impact on most people.
Anecdotally I can almost get behind spending extreme amounts of time on HN/online in general being linked to worsening of mental health in some people (like me). I have periods of months of obsessive HN activity (feeling anxiety about missing a day) and during the same time all sorts of other problems and bad habits surface, from obsessive social media checking to completely unrelated stuff. Having one now.
But even for people like me I wouldn't say being online causes those problems, more likely some third factor makes them be super online and also shows up as other issues, though it may be a feedback loop (removing the option of being constantly online could do good for me)
Ironically, what helped me was to focus on Twitter. Specifically producing quality tweets. I was able to build an audience at my own pace, and it led to quite a lot of opportunities.
So in the same way one particular place isn’t always good to be, one solution is to spend time in a variety of spaces. I like irc/twitter/HN/tiktok, though I still lurk Reddit occasionally.
People do tend to hang out in particular haunts. Like specific forums. Probably once they have established some social connections/invested time.
I haven't got WhatsApp, and the thought of it brings me out in hives. Would be difficult to step back from the web. SMS once had a huge draw, and that was an incredible time sink with less immediacy.
I am from the era where you had to pay a premium for a shallow web. And it was just as addictive for me. I would line the browser up, connect to the Internet, browse fast, and frantically save. Then read later: for hours. Not to mention usenet. The best thing about that was that at least it made me ruminate and refine a response that I would fire and publish the following morning and retrieve a bulk load of messages in as short a time as possible.
For me it always felt like if I'm spending extended time browsing HN, Twitter, Facebook etc. this is usually a sign that I'm in a worse mental state than usual. There's likely a feedback loop there indeed, but when I feel better I just naturally don't spend so much time there; I don't feel the need and get busy with more productive things.
I like to talk, and I like to talk online. I think there is an amount of it which is good.
I don't know what that amount is.
What I can say is that each time I have successfully restricted my access to these places, it was followed by period of intense withdrawal, and after that was over, a notable amount of extra energy to do other things, to my very obvious benefit.
I'm skeptical that anyone has a non-addictive relationship with these places, and i was speculating that you are not an obvious non-example, despite your claims at having turned out fine.
I don't, for the record, think that the solution is as simple as denying your children access to social media while you still have control over them, but it also isn't obvious that letting them engage with it freely counts as a good form of innoculation.
>> Yet the kids themselves never learn how to set their own limits or navigate free time.
How exactly is a kid raised from birth with screens in front of them supposed to learn or even recognize this?
>> Can we stop screentime shaming people?
You are welcome to do so, but I'm free to shame and view negatively all sorts of behaviours. I don't need to accept this any more than you need to accept something you view as a bad habit or worse.
No because screens are terrible for your mental health. Most kids will sit there 24 hours a day if no one teaches them self control. Screens destroy relationships, health, and most of your existence if you have no self control which 90% of people don't.
You have to use a lot of screentime for an effect to be shown. And the studies are always showing correlations, not causations.
As an example, if you're a poorer family, with no time to spend 1-1 with your kids because you work 3 jobs. Are screens the root cause? Or is poverty the root cause?
If the US didn't have overtime rules and required health care for full time jobs, people could work just a single job if they needed to work more hours to make ends meet. They would save a lot of time on commuting especially since many poor people use much slower public transportation to get to their jobs. They would also probably have more reliable schedules. Having a society that people only need to work 40hr/wk might be a good idea (hell, why not the 4 hour work week while we are at it) but the current system encouraging that seems to have failed.
We continue to have a moral panic about screentime. There is no debating that it has continued to get worse and not better. The same kids who were addicted to WoW(or other games) or learning to code in their spare time are doing the same thing today, just longer.
Involved parents are not just helicopter parents. An involved parent might have gone through a similar generational experience where they were ignored by their parents and put in front of the radio, television, computer, etc and want to break the generational cycle with their kids. Because substituting healthy activities for screentime is a good way to model independent behavior and bring balance to your life. It doesn't mean you cannot use screens, but rather that you use them in moderation.
The difference of opinion changes when you become a parent too. You start to reflect on your childhood and things you wish were different while trying your best to bring more real experiences to your kids instead of them trying to explore the world virtually.
Nope, if I'm hanging out with friends/family and they are glued to their phone, I shame them ... if some idiot bumps into me while walking or almost walks into moving traffic cause of their screen, you shame them. It's anti social behavior
Our current “screen time” scare feels a lot like the Dungeons And Dragons scare of the ‘80s. People saw others spending lots of time playing something they don’t like. They felt some superstitious feeling that those people shouldn’t be doing that thing. But couldn’t point to any real causal negative effect it’s having. So they tried to vaguely link it to Satanism and the Occult to convince people it was bad. We see the same sort of hysteria play out today with “online” and “screen time.”
The article presents factual findings and does not get anywhere near passing judgment. That’s for the comments section.
Yeah, guilty as charged. I’ve probably been constantly online since I was 13 (24 now). It’s incredibly easy to find a multitude of things to do online to keep an ADHD-brained person entertained for hours on end, especially if they don’t have a social spark that makes them want to form connections with other people or go on any kind of social outing.
I think this number will continue to rise in the future. Probably 40% by 2035.
I'm 34 and I've been online as often as I've been allowed for 30 years. Hell, I used to load sites/discussions while I got ready for school, print them off and bring them to school and spend my time reading them.
I'm not sure internet use alone is concerning. It was a problem when I was a kid because it isolated me, but it's also hard to tell how the causality worked there because I was a weird-ass little kid.
I'd love to look at/might try to find later what the average amount of time a person spent writing letters or on the phone was - or TV or radio listening. From what I've seen, most people use the Internet like we used to use telephones (lots of young people whose primary contact with their friends is online and I can't see much of a difference between hanging out in Discord for hours and talking on the phone with your bff for hours) or television/radio (I remember all the back and forth about the boob tube and honestly the passive consumption is pretty similar).
It'll also be interesting to see if anybody starts to disengage. The Internet relies on constant novelty to keep people engaged since the body naturally starts regulating to things and once you've seen enough it stops hitting the way it used to.
>I'm not sure internet use alone is concerning. It was a problem when I was a kid because it isolated me, but it's also hard to tell how the causality worked there because I was a weird-ass little kid.
Same with being a weird kid. Being weird led to not having many friends led to relying on internet socialization more and more.
>It'll also be interesting to see if anybody starts to disengage. The Internet relies on constant novelty to keep people engaged since the body naturally starts regulating to things and once you've seen enough it stops hitting the way it used to.
I’m hopeful but cautious. The internet is novelty manifest. There are single sites alone that can keep someone occupied for days. Content aggregation in the form of applications like Tik Tok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, and even HN have the ability of providing hours of content and then some by just refreshing the page or scrolling down. It’ll take willpower for sure for some people to get out of the rut that they’re in right now, and especially for future generations, if entertainment continues to advance.
> Content aggregation in the form of applications like Tik Tok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, and even HN have the ability of providing hours of content and then some by just refreshing the page or scrolling down.
Like over a thousand TV channels? And yet for some reason we were all pretty ready to ditch cable and pursue other entertainment options. Easy isn't enough. (I'm amused by how long this has been going on; Victorians had a similar panic about novels. Though given how I was glued to a book when I was forced away from the digital world, they may not be wrong there either.)
> The internet is novelty manifest. There are single sites alone that can keep someone occupied for days. Content aggregation in the form of applications like Tik Tok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, and even HN have the ability of providing hours of content and then some by just refreshing the page or scrolling down.
Is it, though? It's novelty manifest compared to the pre-Web (and pre social media) days. But that was 30 years ago, and the Internet sure looks a lot less novel when you compare it to the Internet in 2010. You think the iPad babies are going to find anything novel in TikTok? Of course not.
Novelty requires constant change, or else it stops being novel. Not just in the content, but also in the delivery mechanism. Being raised on digital content consumption, I use TikTok but after being glued to it for 3-4 months, I picked out enough of the similarities in content that it started being boring. Another weakness of the current social media landscape that shows up the longer the audience has engaged is recycled content. For example, TT has figured out that I like history content. It has not figured out that I've been looking for stupid fun history tidbits for decades and I already know what it's showing me. "Did you know...?" YES. YES, I DID. It's informational blue balls. I spend too much time on TikTok, but I also spent too much time on LiveJournal, IRC, Usenet, Tumblr, and Reddit. Showing me something new is way harder than a random 13 year old.
Another example is the phenomenon of how people who are porn addicts usually end up seeking out new and novel stimuli because eventually the same old gets boring. That still applies to TikTok: The people who want thirst traps will eventually stop being tickled by the 50th one because it's too similar and their dopamine receptors demand an upping of the ante.
I basically have hope because the human organism requires change. And because human adolescents really like doing the opposite of what the last generation did. We're due for another Great Awakening and shit is going to get weird. If Millennials and Gen Z are obsessed with content consumption, our grandkids are going to rebel pretty hard. I expect some very strong social/cultural taboos around entertainment and content use will show up in a few decades.
I think there were always people in history who just couldn’t make friends like others could, but now the internet is a (sort of) welcoming environment for those kinds of people born now. What incentive do they have to limit/replace the time they spend online? I’m still undecided with ADHD. I’m honestly inclined to say it’s also been around forever, but we only recently have a name for it and a way to identify those with it.
(Hi!) I think I’m seeing it, too. A number of IRL friends I’ve made were originally just known online until I moved out and we began hanging out in person (after we confirmed none of us are secretly human traffickers). I believe that non-virtual connection is always going to remain important. People who are social butterflies use things like Discord, Instagram, datings apps, and Twitter to really just optimize what they already had going for them in real life, and are having more success than they could have had in a past time, imo.
What does ‘going online’ mean nowadays? It used to mean dialling up your modem to your ISP; you had to pay for it by the minute. Or for a business ‘going online’ meant getting a website and an email address set up - and once you’ve ‘gone online’ like that you’re online all the time.
Social media account users are ‘always online’ in the sense that someone can always find them and interact with them… regardless of whether they’re using a device or even awake.
Most information workers - even ones who still work in an office - ‘come online’ when they get to their desk and often remain ‘online’ for out-of-hours contact.
So… what different people mean when they say they are ‘online constantly’ feels like it probably renders any conclusions you can draw from this kind of survey pretty thin.
Wondering the same. If being online constantly means connected to the internet and accessible, I'm guilty. If it means actively engaging with content, I doubt over 40% of adults are doing that 'almost constantly'.
Constantly means something. It doesn't mean too much, or a lot, or an unhealthy amount -- it means almost the entirety of your time.
I was hammered by my parent into an educational success machine. Now that's all I can do.
I've been putting a considerable amount of my time into helping people for past 20 years, that doesn't mean people like to spend time with me outside work and studies.
I didn't do, and didn't learn how to do actives growing up, it's just awkward to others and I when I try. I even cook 5 course meals and workout at home.
Of course I'm going to be constantly online, games and forums are were I'm loved.
Not OP but the treadmill that is tutoring, after school activities, honors societies, academic decathlons, standardized tests, recommendation letters, internships, jobs, and promotions.
I'm on the computer almost constantly (although not quite, I do see friends, clean around the house, play/design board games, read books, walk and play with the dogs, etc), but that doesn't translate to always being online.
Technically my computer is, but I might not be doing anything actively online. I might be coding something (which requires looking things up online, but only sometimes), or working on the graphic design in Illustrator for one of my board game designs, or composing music, or playing old tv shows I have copies of on my computer in the background while I do other things, etc.
It still feels like I'm online a lot though, and a lot less productive in my personal projects than I could be. I keep trying to reduce it, but any effort I've made in the past doesn't seem to last very long.
> Other demographic groups that report almost always going online include college-educated adults, adults who live in higher-income households and urban residents.
In other words self-reporting as “being online constantly” (whatever that means… TikTok or day trading?) correlates with more education, income, and ability to pay a higher rent.
Three in ten are online 24/7? I guess those are the 30% that are ready for all the employers that require them to be available 24/7. My job has me carrying three cellphone. At any moment I need to be able to respond and, on occasion, spend a great many uninterrupted hours in front of a screen processing information. A 24/7 online lifestyle for teenagers might be good training for those future jobs. (What it means for their mental health is beside the point.)
I once had a conversation with a fighter pilot about what a good pilot candidate looks like. He said it would be someone who could drift a car around a corner while having conversation about a legal problem, while adjusting the radio, and not missing a beat as he pauses that conversation to answer a cellphone, all the while keeping an eye out for cops. Such people will not be the type to sit quietly in history class, but they might be those people who sit at a screen all day bouncing between a dozen different tasks.
I'm a parent to four little kids, and I've spent a ton of time at home with them over the last few years. When I take them to the park, it's often so that I can have a break, because it's a safe place for them to spread out and explore and interact with someone other than me, where I'm not constantly preventing them from breaking things or making a big mess. That's where I can take some time to read, or listen to something, or make a phone call. The other 11 hours of the day when they're awake and we're at home, I don't necessarily have time to do anything for myself on a screen.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I suspect that you're right, in fact. But what's happening at the park might not be the best indicator.
I would withhold judgment. With a 3-4 year old, as a parent, I can tell you you may not know that they need a break. Or that they spent all morning interacting at home, and are just trying to get out of the house and the kid into a situation they can catch a breather.
The _guilt_ I would feel looking at my phone as a parent is objectively unproductive when I look objectively at how much 1-1 time I have sunk into my kid. People need breaks, and if not the phone, it would be something else...
I hate it, but I also have no problem being a transient parent who brings a little happiness to them while their parents are distracted. I wrote a book about this realization recently where I'd see a similar statistic of other parents at a park on their phone and not involved with their kids. Leave your phone at home, it's seriously that easy and you won't regret it.
I'll be spending 90% of my waking hours out at my farm starting probably next week depending on the weather.
I feel sorry for people who don't get to experience 8am in an open field with the sun shining. Little rabbits bouncing around. The sweet smell of the grass. The earth between your toes.
You can get that without spending 90% of your time on a farm. I get most of that chilling out on the back patio in the morning (there's also a prairie just beyond our back fence).
And then eventually the sun gets too bright for my computer screens and I have to go back inside to continue working.
But good on you for taking an honest stab at full-time farm work. From what I hear it's gotten pretty difficult to make a living off of it, unless you have a huge farm and put millions of dollars into farm equipment (or you're otherwise retired and don't need much extra money). Hopefully it's the latter in your case :).
Sounds boring to me, but then what I do outside sounds boring to others. Such is life. I'd rather be out exploring with a camera. Perhaps even on a farm, documenting and finding the art in it. I'm happiest working with my hands, but that could be working a camera as easily as building something in Minecraft. The farming I've done (in real life!) wasn't very fulfilling.
Wonder how those stats compare in other places? It feels to me at least like the numbers should be similar in places like the UK, mainland Europe, Canada, Australia, etc, but that's just based on my own personal acquaintances/bubble. Also kinda surprised it's that low, but hey, maybe it's just that the percentage of the population that's constantly online is louder than the rest of them, especially when it comes to social media.
I think the moral panic, in part, comes from a strong cultural bias of valuing extroversion over introversion. The additional layer to that is the difference in how people understand the nuances of being online. The main arguments I have heard against my screen time is that it takes me away from meeting "real" people. The complexity of how people can interact with each other online is lost to them.
Seeing different amounts of introversion from live streamers helped me understand this divide. For some people, the idea of staying in your room all day and playing video games sounds like one of the most isolating things you can do. The amount of other people you are playing with online doesn't make a difference. But from the other side, there's streamers that get consistently 1000+ concurrent viewers to every stream and they make an effort to interact with individuals over time. Not everyone is chatting, but even if 1% are, thats a group of 10 people constantly chatting. Should the steamer be considered introverted or extroverted.
I think the difference between people who see screen time as good vs bad relates to whether they consider online interactions as social vs not. There is a large population of people that see any screen use as the same, but that comes from a place of not understanding the different uses of technology. The divide falls on generational lines because younger generations grew up using the internet and don't remember a "before". Those that didn't, and failed to adapt to social interactions moving online, feel nostalgic and see screen use as a "problem". I think younger generations also aren't valuing extraversion the same way older ones did because there is a better understanding of things like social anxiety and neurodevelopmental disorders.
I used to be bothered a lot and got defensive when people tried to screen shame me, but I don't care anymore. I recognized it's just part of the cycle of new technology making people feel uncomfortable when they can't or choose not to adapt. The same divide happens over and over at different scales. Ebooks are a great example, paper vs computer, paper vs eink, eink vs computer, book vs movie vs audiobook. I just finished working my way through an excellent Youtube analysis series of Dune, there hours of a book club discussion with a content creator. As a deeply introverted person, even online discussions can feel exhausting. People that try to screen shame me demonstrate they have zero nuanced understanding of that.
Can we stop screentime shaming people?
We have had an ongoing moral panic about screentime for about a decade. Screentime is so broad and vast it now covers anything from chatting with your grandma to get her spaghetti recipe to playing WoW nonstop in your underwear to learning how to code on Youtube to make yourself better and more productive to using a Peloton bike to workout.
The youngest generation has it the worst with helicopter parents sitting over their kids shoulders, filling their lives with activities to "keep them off screens". Yet the kids themselves never learn how to set their own limits or navigate free time. We fail to prepare for independence as actual adults, and just create a lot of anxiety and shame around screens themselves.