> Isn't that merely the slippery slope fallacy? You're correct, you did present a slippery slope. > Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely

> Isn't that merely the slippery slope fallacy? You're correct, you did present a slippery slope. > Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely eliminate our agency... > You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful. Which is it? Is the draw of the internet simply too powerful to ignore? Or is it possible to partially ignore this distraction? > Secondly, all of the other activities you listed do not reduce our agency to the extent that the internet does. Internet access reduces your agency? Sorry to hear that. Internet access increases my agency. > Thirdly, establishing distance from the internet (e.g. not involving computers when they aren't necessary, using the computer at the library instead of keeping one at home, adding restrictions to a smartphone or using a dumbphone) is not the same as giving it up altogether. > We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet. You're excusing convenience. If the internet is so harmful, why risk any contact? And are all parts of the internet equally harmful? Back to the original point, if you don't want to use the internet, then don't. But if you don't want to use the internet, why are you using it to tell other people that you don't want to use it?