
A moment that changed me: I resolved to reduce my screen time – and it was a big mistake
Over the past decade or two, my efforts at self-improvement have taken various forms: the year where I read 105 books; the period during which I gave up all forms of sugar including, misguidedly, fruit; and a dalliance with shamanism that, I'm sorry to say, included interpretive dance. Some might suggest I would be better off learning to cook, or drive, or type with more than one finger, but they can't reach me because I no longer look at my phone.
'Project Screen Time' began after I listened to a podcast in which a comedian claimed that you shouldn't look at social media within two hours of waking up, because it messes with your dopamine, or something. This is my favourite kind of advice: uncited, from the mouth of a layperson who can't remember how they acquired it. But I gave up opening Instagram first thing in the morning and … it worked. Miraculously, choosing not to sandblast my brain with pictures of other people's abs before I was fully conscious did improve my mood. Even better, I found that if I didn't look at my socials first thing, I could often resist until after lunch. As is typically the case when I embark on a new regime, this brief moment of clarity quickly became a frenzy.
I traded one obsession (looking at my phone) for another (not looking at it). In my second week, I was down to two hours of screen time a day. By my third, it was an hour and a half – and I became determined to get it below 60 minutes. Part of me was impressed that I could appear normal while quietly (nobly?) wielding this superpower. However, I was unable to keep my gift a secret. I soon began boring friends, acquaintances and service workers with tales of my herculean discipline.
Before long, my quest was disrupting my day in new ways. I resented having to open Maps on my phone, so I found myself getting lost while cycling to appointments. If I wanted to show someone a picture or a meme, I would ask to Google it on their phone, rather than my own. I refused to order Ubers after nights out (the painstaking process of watching a cab crawl towards my location while the minutes of screen time racked up was torturous) and instead offered to transfer the money (later, on my laptop) to whoever did.
I became increasingly frustrated that my screen time wasn't lower. I would get to 2pm having barely glanced at my phone and yet the data would claim I had used it for 36 minutes. I began to think conspiratorially. My screen time was displayed in a graph split into blue (social), turquoise (entertainment) and orange (productivity and finance). But the vast majority of the chart was made up of undelineated grey. What was the grey?!
Eventually, screen time was added to the list of subjects (including the music and lore of Taylor Swift and my attraction to Ron DeSantis) that I was forbidden from discussing at home. My lowest point arrived as I was showing a friend my weekly stats, which gives you a breakdown of how long you've spent on each app. He queried why 'Settings' was my third most-used application – and I had to admit it was because that was how I compulsively checked my screen time.
My tantrum over being unable to memorialise my lowest-ever screen report (51 minutes a day!) was a wake-up call; reducing my screen time had become its own form of phone addiction. Rather than escaping the need to seek validation from strangers online, I had happened upon a new way to earn their approval. But all was not lost. The realisation nudged me towards acceptance that I will probably never be a moderate person; I can't rely on any form of self-regulation (my latest regime – skincare – revolves around an LED mask that automatically switches off after 10 minutes, otherwise I fear I would be wearing it to the office like a DayGlo Hannibal Lecter).
In the end, I stopped trying to recapture my screen-time report, instead screenshotting the less aesthetic chart in my settings to post online. Within minutes, DMs flooded in from people congratulating me on my self-restraint and asking how I had managed to quit my phone. I replied to them all, dopamine flooding my brain's starved reward centre. That day, my screen time was three hours and 36 minutes.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Jeff Bezos posts heartfelt tribute to mom Jackie Bezos who's died at 78
Jackie Bezos, the mother of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, has died at age 78, the billionaire announced in a heartfelt statement. Jacklyn Gise Bezos, who was born in 1946, 'died peacefully in her Miami home' on Thursday, according to the Bezos family foundation. 'After a long fight with Lewy Body Dementia, she passed away today, surrounded by so many of us who loved her — her kids, grandkids, and my dad,' the tech billionaire wrote in an Instagram post on Thursday. 'I know she felt our love in those final moments. We were all so lucky to be in her life. I hold her safe in my heart forever.' She was diagnosed with the disease in 2020, the foundation said. Jackie is survived by her husband, Mike, children Jeff, Christina, and Mark, 11 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. She had Jeff Bezos when she was 17 years old, he wrote. 'Her adulthood started a little bit early when she became my mom at the tender age of 17. That couldn't have been easy, but she made it all work,' the post continued. 'She pounced on the job of loving me with ferocity, brought my amazing dad onto the team a few years later, and then added my sister and brother to her list of people to love, guard, and nourish. For the rest of her life, that list of people to love never stopped growing. She always gave so much more than she ever asked for.'


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Faith-based activist groups celebrate after Costco bails on selling abortion pill
Costco has opted not to dispense abortion pills after receiving demands from activists on both sides of the issue — and faith-based groups are celebrating the move. Last year, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander urged the retail giant to get a certification to be able to dispense mifepristone — one drug in a two-drug regimen for medication abortions — at its pharmacies. The following month a religious coalition pleaded with Costco not to sell the termination pill. The FDA allows only certified prescribers to dispense mifepristone. Costco chose to forego pursuing this certification, the company said in a statement to Reuters emphasizing the decision was based on a lack of consumer demand. "Our position at this time not to sell mifepristone, which has not changed, is based on the lack of demand from our members and other patients, who we understand generally have the drug dispensed by their medical providers,' the company said. Bloomberg first reported Costco's decision. The Independent has reached out to Costco for more information about its decision. Representatives on both sides of the abortion debate have battled over Costco's position in the form of letters. Last July, Lander penned a letter to CEO Ron Vachris demanding the retailer 'immediately take the necessary steps to receive certification' to sell mifepristone, following in the steps of CVS and Walgreens. The comptroller also wrote letters to the leaders of Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, and McKesson. 'By failing to become certified mifepristone dispensers, these pharmacy giants put both women's reproductive health care and investors' money at risk,' he said in a statement at the time. In August 2024, a coalition of religious activists wrote to Vachris, urging Costco to 'continue its current practice of not dispensing the abortion drug mifepristone.' The group argued that dispensing the drug will reduce demand for the diapers and formula that the store sells and worsen the 'the crisis of record low birth rates.' The letter also alleged the pill poses 'serious health risks.' The FDA first approved the drug in 2000 to end pregnancy through 10 weeks of gestation, but anti-abortion activists have recently challenged its safety and FDA approval. Last year, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled to preserve access to the crucial drug, as nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. — 63 percent — are medication abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. 'Costco's decision to refuse to dispense mifepristone is disappointing and short-sighted,' a spokesperson for Lander told The Independent in a statement. Failure to provide access to proven safe and FDA-approved medication under the guise of 'weak demand' risks isolating customers and undermines the company's credibility. Putting customer needs before political ideology must remain Costco's priority.' Faith-based activists have celebrated the decision. 'We applaud Costco for doing the right thing by its shareholders and resisting activist calls to sell abortion drugs,' Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Michael Ross said in a statement Thursday. 'They have nothing to gain and much to lose by becoming abortion dispensaries.' 'We have this momentum,' Tim Schwarzenberger, director of corporate engagement at Inspire Investing, the world's largest faith-based ETF provider, told Bloomberg. 'Now there is a chance to turn to some of the other retailers.' 'We are so grateful that Costco—a company that serves families, especially large ones—has decided to remain a wholesale store, not become an abortion facility,' Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at evangelical think-tank Family Research Council, said in a statement on X. 'What a win for America! Great job, @Costco!" CVS and Walgreens, which both dispense the drug, have stood by their decisions in the wake of Costco's announcement. 'We have a long history of supporting and advancing women's health and we remain focused on meeting their unique health needs. This includes providing access to safe, legal, and evidence-based reproductive health services,' CVS told The Independent in a statement, noting that the company fills prescriptions in states where it's legal. Walgreens declined to comment. Its website states: "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on mifepristone access allows Walgreens to continue to dispense mifepristone under the FDA guidelines.' The abortion landscape has been complicated after the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022. In January 2023, the FDA removed some restrictions around accessing mifepristone and added the pharmacy certification. Individuals living in states that have banned the procedure cannot access the drug at pharmacies; 12 states have total abortion bans, according to Guttmacher Institute. The 2022 Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe has opened the door for abortion opponents to argue fresh legal challenges. Earlier this year, anti-abortion activists pushed a report by right-wing think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center claiming serious complications from mifepristone use were 22 times higher than previously reported. Critics blasted the report as 'bogus.'


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
4th person dies after a Legionnaires' disease outbreak sickens dozens in New York City
A fourth person has died in connection with a Legionnaires' disease outbreak in New York City, health officials disclosed Thursday as they revealed that some cooling towers that tested positive for the bacteria are in city-run buildings. The outbreak in Central Harlem has sickened dozens since it began in late July. Seventeen people were hospitalized as of Thursday, according to the health department. The bacteria that causes Legionnaires' disease had been discovered in 12 cooling towers on 10 buildings, including a city-run hospital and sexual health clinic, health officials said. Remediation efforts have been completed on 11 of the cooling towers, with the final tower's remediation required to be completed Friday. Legionnaires' disease is a type of pneumonia that is caused by Legionella bacteria, which grow in warm water and spread through building water systems. The city's outbreak has been linked to cooling towers, which use water and a fan to cool buildings. People usually develop symptoms — a cough, fever, headaches, muscle aches and shortness of breath — between two days to two weeks after exposure to the bacteria, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Michelle Morse, the city's acting health commissioner, said new cases in the Central Harlem outbreak have begun to decline 'which indicates that the sources of the bacteria have been contained.' She urged people who live or work in the area to contact a health care provider if they develop flu-like symptoms.