tbh, for me the staying power of being low-tech is the fact that i’ve spent very little money on this habit so far. the ipod shuffle i have is my mom’s, which she kept in a box in her office once she stopped using it, and gave it to me over christmas this year. my kindle was a gift. from when i was in middle school. it still works, it’s still good. i do have a Brick, but that was a gift, too. if i hadn’t been gifted it, i wouldn’t have bought it. i get books from little free libraries. i get dvds and cds from the thrift store. my roommate has a cd player that we share. my dvd player is thrifted. my tv is old and i got it for free. i’ve been very lucky with how much of my “low-tech” tech has come to me either cheap or completely free. and because of that, i’ve acquired it all pretty slowly. so for me at least, i think this habit has staying power. it’s not an investment i feel pressured to continue, it’s a habit my life has naturally grown into.
I love this so much. When I first wrote about my experience of 'chaining my phone to a wall,' the most popular comment was: where can I buy this chain? That moment really stayed with me — why must every lifestlye choice come with a starter kit? It's so rewarding to see how everyone's approaching this low-tech lifestyle: DIY laptops, reviving old phones... I especially love that the low-tech life "isn't an investment you're pressured to continue" but a habit you came to love. There's such an impulse to purchase a new personality at the beginning of each year (that's swiftly abandoned), its important we treasure the lifestyle changes that creep us on us slowly, then all at once.
It’s always so weird to see people say that it’s hypocritical to post about analog living online. The assumption must be that anyone posting about analog-related ideas must be promoting being 100% offline, but that isn’t the case at all.
Should we write books to demonstrate how great reading is? Should I tell people at the gym how great exercise is? If anything, the internet is the perfect place to talk about going offline more; this is the audience that needs it the most.
I also don’t think the benefits of social media should be attributed to social media alone. By that, I mean all of the benefits of social media are available offline as well. We can, and for decades did, form communities and discover new ideas and content without the help of the internet. Sure, without the internet I wouldn’t know who Chris Williamson is, but I wouldn’t have spent that time just twiddling my thumbs and watching the grass grow without YouTube.
All of this comes with the asterisk that I am, evidently, still a social media user, but for me, the analog living trend has been part of what has helped (is helping) me spend less of my time online, and more time in the real world, my real world. When I turn the computer or my phone off, the pixels disappear and my life still looks exactly the same as before.
Of course technology, including the internet, offers benefits we wouldn’t have otherwise. I have a home server, I’m a tech nerd, go internet! But at the same time, I think we turn to it and our devices too often to do things we can achieve in other ways, to our detriment. This whole analog trend is the solution to that, and in my opinion, it is really just saying something like “be conscious of what you are using the internet for”.
I enjoyed your essay, especially trying to figure out what your conclusions were going to be; I couldn’t pick exactly where you were going with it at times. I think I disagree with some points, but it was also really interesting to hear it compared to veganism. I’m sure a lot of influencers and companies are using this trend for to gain followers or revenue, but that will be true of all trends and shouldn’t be a reflection on the core ideas.
I really appreciate your thoughtful response here — I'm in complete agreement. What I had struggled with when writing this post was the definition of luddism (I tried to include as many disclaimers as I can about the demographic I'm referencing in this movement). The spectrum of folks who consider themselves neo-luddites vary, and maybe that's the solution to this debate itself: understanding that the desire to divest from technology doesn't have to be part of a broader movement, it can just be a personal choice!
It's very algorithmically friendly to preach either extreme, but what's the fun in diluting our own ideas to be legible to others?
Oh I can relate to the desire to add disclaimers. I feel like I want to address every single hypothetical situation when I say things. It’s good for the algorithm to speak in extremes, but it’s also not very practical to spend 80% of an essay giving disclaimers.
Like I said, I enjoyed your writing. I agree that everyone probably has their own motivations and analog-ish practice that suits them, even if there is a trend that makes it popular and companies/influencers try and hijack that.
The problem with calling yourself a Luddite for not using a smart phone is that it misunderstands what Luddism actually was. The original Luddites weren't individuals making lifestyle choices, they were organized textile workers who collectively destroyed machinery that threatened their livelihoods. They where fighting for their lives and they paid for it.
Rebranding personal consumer choices as 'Luddism' strips the term of its political and class-conscious origins. It's the same dynamic you point out with veganism: there's a world of difference between trend-chasing vegans buying $12 oat milk lattes and communities with deep cultural or spiritual traditions around plant-based living—like Jain or certain Hindu practices, where it's tied to ahimsa and centuries of philosophical meaning, not Instagram aesthetics.
Let's not confuse individual consumption patterns with collective labor resistance, or lifestyle branding with lived tradition
Great point — I think the modern-day version of luddism has developed different pockets (and therefore different goals with the low-tech life). Brian Merchant of The Blood In The Machine does a great job capturing the population abstaining from technology primarily for political and class-conscious reasons.
I do think (we like it or not) there is a growing population of folks branding their aversion to technology as neo-luddism, despite being closer to a personal lifestyle. Perhaps you're right, we should pushback on the term neo-luddite being adopted for those contexts, but I wonder how this shifts the red-line: when large populations of people (for whatever reason) choose to boycott AI, wouldn't the result be beneficial to all parties — same way how veganism, despite being a superficial trend in some contexts, did help decrease the consumption of meat, normalize the rejection of animal cruelty, and more.
Is the motivation here critical, if it helps fight the greater cause? (Obviously conditional on the fact that these personal consumption choices ARE actually helping)
I'm speaking in hypotheticals here. These also aren't rhetorical questions. It's incredibly important we honor the original luddites. Would adding 'neo-' as a prefix here be sufficient to distinguish the two movements? Maybe with how superficial most things are today is enough to clarify that low-tech folks today aren't always divesting from tech for political reasons.
Such a great read and a really interesting take on this topic, thank you! Instant subscribe from me!
I have been thinking about the ability to disconnect a lot, I run a small business with my family but I'm the one responsible for all our marketing and social media. Facebook is our biggest platform and at one point you could run a business page without a personal facebook. Now you need a personal facebook to be linked to it. I have been wanting to delete my Facebook for such a long time. Mainly because I get an insane amount of divisive content pushed at me that I don't follow or have any interest in. I am worried about how much social media is contributing to my increasing anxiety. I also get instant notifications every time someone leaves a rude comment on our Facebook posts or leaves a bad review on Google. (Don't get me started on Google reviews) But we can't just opt out of all that, it's not an option. We need to be where customers are.
My partner deleted his Facebook and Instagram, he doesn't need it for work and I was sooo jealous that I wasn't able to do the same. But he set up a blank new one, just to use Facebook marketplace to sell his car (another thing we've come to rely on FB for, sigh). And despite having no history, no friends and following no pages or groups, he was flooded with red pill, right-wing, angry, divisive political content. We were shocked, but sadly no surprised. It's well known how Facebook contributed to the genocide in Myanmar, Facebook itself admitted that. There's countless news stories of how Facebook has been involved in elections. The Cambridge Analytica scandal in my country is another example.
For me, this "analog" topic is exciting for this reason. It's an opportunity to reflect and discuss how we really want to engage with these platforms. We need to collectively resist the grip that tech giants like Meta have over our lives. It's not just about how these platforms make us personally feel but the extent to which they are deliberately pushing certain content in order to have a real-life impact on our legislation, elections and lives. (I also find it funny that Meta and Zuck tried to push the metaverse and now a bunch of us are like, erm no thanks we're going to touch real grass not virtual grass thank you very much.)
People giving each other inspiration on alternatives to these platforms - that's a real positive that is coming out of this. My age group remembers life before social media and streaming was everything and everywhere, but some younger generations don't. Making it fun and trendy and interesting and exciting is a way to capture the imagination of people, and show real alternatives.
But one last point, I have a friend who I went to uni with, she has had the same nokia brick phone forever. She never signed up for Facebook. She has never used google maps, or spotify, or netflix. She had a DVD player and a CD player. She'd buy her dvds and cds from charity shops or rent them from the Library (she's a librarian now!) We email each other to keep in touch. She did this all to save money; she didn't want an expensive phone contract, so she has literally never had a smartphone. She uses bus stop maps or printouts of maps from home to find her way. For years, I thought she was eccentric, and now I wish I could be her! But my point is, her way of living has saved her a lot of money whereas I dread to think of how many months I've spent paying for streaming services I've barely used. There's also something to be said for the mental health benefits of having a little friction in your life, rather than everything be easily accessible.
Thank you so much for sharing this — I feel like this aspect of the offline discourse gets glossed over a lot! I feel like the price of being online has become a 'necessary' cost. The idea that one would opt out of having a smartphone because phone plans are too expensive is such a great example: most things around us are now optimized for cell phones. How does it make sense that we're penalizing those who choose not to pay for an expensive phone/promote their businesses online? It's almost as though there's something of a low-tech 'tax'...
I didn't know this was a trend to this extent--every "analog" advocate I keep up with has a fairly small following (less than 100k), and I've only heard the "luddite" term from this newsletter.
I guess I'm just surprised because when I've mentioned this to others around me, they still seem shocked that I'd even quit social media, let alone go "analog". Is this just a small-scale NYC indie trend that I've somehow tapped into from six states to the south? Is it a social media trend to go analog, and I've missed it because I'm not on socials?
Oh my god I think you're pulling me out of my algorithmic/geographic bubble/confirmation bias! Thank you for catching this — you may be right! I am seeing it everywhere. Most of the big culture mags have written think pieces about this trend (everyone from the NYTimes, New Yorker, Wired, Atlantic... even the Free Press has written an article about dumbphones and 'going offline'). But to your point, a lot of these publications, despite publishing around the world, often target metropolitan spaces like New York City (and is therefore mostly references these spaces) ...
Maybe there's a global apettite for a low-tech life. But the way we see this 'trend' manifesting is for a specific population...
Thinking out loud here because I find this fascinating.
It's easy to forget that despite the globalization of trends through social media, there are still significant regional cultural divides. You and I probably have very similar interests and opinions, but experience them completely differently based on our surroundings.
As a rural Southerner, I had never considered that I wasn't the target audience of such national publications like the New York Times, but it makes sense. I would imagine that cities like NYC are where a majority of trends are incubated and born—then they diffuse outward through media (both social and traditional) to the wider population.
I've not gone full "Luddite", but I have a friend who did for about a year. I mentioned this to some classmates (four left-leaning Southern-born college women) in November-ish and all of them were dumbfounded, even laughing at the concept. I do know a lot of people who have cut down on social media (self-imposed screen time limits, deleting apps, accessing only through their browser, etc.) but the idea of going any further than that seems pretty foreign and shocking to everyone I know.
I think the performance of the aesthetics of “going analog” is where it becomes a sort of “cool girl” trend, similar to veganism. I’m sure there’s a better word than that, but you get my point. Just cutting down on screen time is boring, something that probably everyone and their actual, literal mother has tried. But buying a flip phone or an old iPod, styling the corded earbuds as part of an outfit, that’s what gives it the “cool” factor to become a social media trend. Then, once it diffuses enough to become accessible, it ceases to be a signal of individuality. The trend cycle moves on. It either becomes cringey or is absorbed into a larger cultural identity (example: record players and records as wall decor).
Perfect 👐 I just made a little T*ktok on this same topic - it’s really interesting how it replicates a lot of the same structures of self-surveillance and lifestyle influencing, and how everything becomes commodified and performable - even the act of unplugging. Amazing article as always :)
Like most things, I think if this has any staying power, it's going to need to go deeper than an aesthetic or hashtag trend. I was kind of surprised to see that analog things are having such a moment. Admittedly, they're having a moment for me personally, but it's from the angle of creating a context for the young kids I'm raising. I stream music, but I also have analog tech I'm comfortable giving my kids so they can have some agency over their cultural consumption without handing them a screen or internet-connected device. I didn't want to buy a $60 hunk of plastic, so I'm experimenting with an open source screen time tool and an NFC sticker. Tweaking a couple little things that I can stick with is going to make a bigger difference than slapping a label on myself and burning out when the trend has run its course.
I don't see how veganism being good for the environment and divesting from big tech being good are false statements.
Also, going off big tech social media is a privilege but that doesn't make it a bad idea in my opinion. I get that not everyone has that option. But if you do and you want to, why is that bad?
I will say the consumerism related to goingg analog " does bug me though. As is expecting everyone to do as you do.
Cal Newport uses the term “technoselectionism” which I think is spot on in terms of acknowledging tech WILL be part of life, but we’re capable of making choices and setting limits in how that shows up.
tbh, for me the staying power of being low-tech is the fact that i’ve spent very little money on this habit so far. the ipod shuffle i have is my mom’s, which she kept in a box in her office once she stopped using it, and gave it to me over christmas this year. my kindle was a gift. from when i was in middle school. it still works, it’s still good. i do have a Brick, but that was a gift, too. if i hadn’t been gifted it, i wouldn’t have bought it. i get books from little free libraries. i get dvds and cds from the thrift store. my roommate has a cd player that we share. my dvd player is thrifted. my tv is old and i got it for free. i’ve been very lucky with how much of my “low-tech” tech has come to me either cheap or completely free. and because of that, i’ve acquired it all pretty slowly. so for me at least, i think this habit has staying power. it’s not an investment i feel pressured to continue, it’s a habit my life has naturally grown into.
I love this so much. When I first wrote about my experience of 'chaining my phone to a wall,' the most popular comment was: where can I buy this chain? That moment really stayed with me — why must every lifestlye choice come with a starter kit? It's so rewarding to see how everyone's approaching this low-tech lifestyle: DIY laptops, reviving old phones... I especially love that the low-tech life "isn't an investment you're pressured to continue" but a habit you came to love. There's such an impulse to purchase a new personality at the beginning of each year (that's swiftly abandoned), its important we treasure the lifestyle changes that creep us on us slowly, then all at once.
It’s always so weird to see people say that it’s hypocritical to post about analog living online. The assumption must be that anyone posting about analog-related ideas must be promoting being 100% offline, but that isn’t the case at all.
Should we write books to demonstrate how great reading is? Should I tell people at the gym how great exercise is? If anything, the internet is the perfect place to talk about going offline more; this is the audience that needs it the most.
I also don’t think the benefits of social media should be attributed to social media alone. By that, I mean all of the benefits of social media are available offline as well. We can, and for decades did, form communities and discover new ideas and content without the help of the internet. Sure, without the internet I wouldn’t know who Chris Williamson is, but I wouldn’t have spent that time just twiddling my thumbs and watching the grass grow without YouTube.
All of this comes with the asterisk that I am, evidently, still a social media user, but for me, the analog living trend has been part of what has helped (is helping) me spend less of my time online, and more time in the real world, my real world. When I turn the computer or my phone off, the pixels disappear and my life still looks exactly the same as before.
Of course technology, including the internet, offers benefits we wouldn’t have otherwise. I have a home server, I’m a tech nerd, go internet! But at the same time, I think we turn to it and our devices too often to do things we can achieve in other ways, to our detriment. This whole analog trend is the solution to that, and in my opinion, it is really just saying something like “be conscious of what you are using the internet for”.
I enjoyed your essay, especially trying to figure out what your conclusions were going to be; I couldn’t pick exactly where you were going with it at times. I think I disagree with some points, but it was also really interesting to hear it compared to veganism. I’m sure a lot of influencers and companies are using this trend for to gain followers or revenue, but that will be true of all trends and shouldn’t be a reflection on the core ideas.
I really appreciate your thoughtful response here — I'm in complete agreement. What I had struggled with when writing this post was the definition of luddism (I tried to include as many disclaimers as I can about the demographic I'm referencing in this movement). The spectrum of folks who consider themselves neo-luddites vary, and maybe that's the solution to this debate itself: understanding that the desire to divest from technology doesn't have to be part of a broader movement, it can just be a personal choice!
It's very algorithmically friendly to preach either extreme, but what's the fun in diluting our own ideas to be legible to others?
Oh I can relate to the desire to add disclaimers. I feel like I want to address every single hypothetical situation when I say things. It’s good for the algorithm to speak in extremes, but it’s also not very practical to spend 80% of an essay giving disclaimers.
Like I said, I enjoyed your writing. I agree that everyone probably has their own motivations and analog-ish practice that suits them, even if there is a trend that makes it popular and companies/influencers try and hijack that.
The problem with calling yourself a Luddite for not using a smart phone is that it misunderstands what Luddism actually was. The original Luddites weren't individuals making lifestyle choices, they were organized textile workers who collectively destroyed machinery that threatened their livelihoods. They where fighting for their lives and they paid for it.
Rebranding personal consumer choices as 'Luddism' strips the term of its political and class-conscious origins. It's the same dynamic you point out with veganism: there's a world of difference between trend-chasing vegans buying $12 oat milk lattes and communities with deep cultural or spiritual traditions around plant-based living—like Jain or certain Hindu practices, where it's tied to ahimsa and centuries of philosophical meaning, not Instagram aesthetics.
Let's not confuse individual consumption patterns with collective labor resistance, or lifestyle branding with lived tradition
Great point — I think the modern-day version of luddism has developed different pockets (and therefore different goals with the low-tech life). Brian Merchant of The Blood In The Machine does a great job capturing the population abstaining from technology primarily for political and class-conscious reasons.
I do think (we like it or not) there is a growing population of folks branding their aversion to technology as neo-luddism, despite being closer to a personal lifestyle. Perhaps you're right, we should pushback on the term neo-luddite being adopted for those contexts, but I wonder how this shifts the red-line: when large populations of people (for whatever reason) choose to boycott AI, wouldn't the result be beneficial to all parties — same way how veganism, despite being a superficial trend in some contexts, did help decrease the consumption of meat, normalize the rejection of animal cruelty, and more.
Is the motivation here critical, if it helps fight the greater cause? (Obviously conditional on the fact that these personal consumption choices ARE actually helping)
I'm speaking in hypotheticals here. These also aren't rhetorical questions. It's incredibly important we honor the original luddites. Would adding 'neo-' as a prefix here be sufficient to distinguish the two movements? Maybe with how superficial most things are today is enough to clarify that low-tech folks today aren't always divesting from tech for political reasons.
Such a great read and a really interesting take on this topic, thank you! Instant subscribe from me!
I have been thinking about the ability to disconnect a lot, I run a small business with my family but I'm the one responsible for all our marketing and social media. Facebook is our biggest platform and at one point you could run a business page without a personal facebook. Now you need a personal facebook to be linked to it. I have been wanting to delete my Facebook for such a long time. Mainly because I get an insane amount of divisive content pushed at me that I don't follow or have any interest in. I am worried about how much social media is contributing to my increasing anxiety. I also get instant notifications every time someone leaves a rude comment on our Facebook posts or leaves a bad review on Google. (Don't get me started on Google reviews) But we can't just opt out of all that, it's not an option. We need to be where customers are.
My partner deleted his Facebook and Instagram, he doesn't need it for work and I was sooo jealous that I wasn't able to do the same. But he set up a blank new one, just to use Facebook marketplace to sell his car (another thing we've come to rely on FB for, sigh). And despite having no history, no friends and following no pages or groups, he was flooded with red pill, right-wing, angry, divisive political content. We were shocked, but sadly no surprised. It's well known how Facebook contributed to the genocide in Myanmar, Facebook itself admitted that. There's countless news stories of how Facebook has been involved in elections. The Cambridge Analytica scandal in my country is another example.
For me, this "analog" topic is exciting for this reason. It's an opportunity to reflect and discuss how we really want to engage with these platforms. We need to collectively resist the grip that tech giants like Meta have over our lives. It's not just about how these platforms make us personally feel but the extent to which they are deliberately pushing certain content in order to have a real-life impact on our legislation, elections and lives. (I also find it funny that Meta and Zuck tried to push the metaverse and now a bunch of us are like, erm no thanks we're going to touch real grass not virtual grass thank you very much.)
People giving each other inspiration on alternatives to these platforms - that's a real positive that is coming out of this. My age group remembers life before social media and streaming was everything and everywhere, but some younger generations don't. Making it fun and trendy and interesting and exciting is a way to capture the imagination of people, and show real alternatives.
But one last point, I have a friend who I went to uni with, she has had the same nokia brick phone forever. She never signed up for Facebook. She has never used google maps, or spotify, or netflix. She had a DVD player and a CD player. She'd buy her dvds and cds from charity shops or rent them from the Library (she's a librarian now!) We email each other to keep in touch. She did this all to save money; she didn't want an expensive phone contract, so she has literally never had a smartphone. She uses bus stop maps or printouts of maps from home to find her way. For years, I thought she was eccentric, and now I wish I could be her! But my point is, her way of living has saved her a lot of money whereas I dread to think of how many months I've spent paying for streaming services I've barely used. There's also something to be said for the mental health benefits of having a little friction in your life, rather than everything be easily accessible.
Thank you so much for sharing this — I feel like this aspect of the offline discourse gets glossed over a lot! I feel like the price of being online has become a 'necessary' cost. The idea that one would opt out of having a smartphone because phone plans are too expensive is such a great example: most things around us are now optimized for cell phones. How does it make sense that we're penalizing those who choose not to pay for an expensive phone/promote their businesses online? It's almost as though there's something of a low-tech 'tax'...
I didn't know this was a trend to this extent--every "analog" advocate I keep up with has a fairly small following (less than 100k), and I've only heard the "luddite" term from this newsletter.
I guess I'm just surprised because when I've mentioned this to others around me, they still seem shocked that I'd even quit social media, let alone go "analog". Is this just a small-scale NYC indie trend that I've somehow tapped into from six states to the south? Is it a social media trend to go analog, and I've missed it because I'm not on socials?
Oh my god I think you're pulling me out of my algorithmic/geographic bubble/confirmation bias! Thank you for catching this — you may be right! I am seeing it everywhere. Most of the big culture mags have written think pieces about this trend (everyone from the NYTimes, New Yorker, Wired, Atlantic... even the Free Press has written an article about dumbphones and 'going offline'). But to your point, a lot of these publications, despite publishing around the world, often target metropolitan spaces like New York City (and is therefore mostly references these spaces) ...
Maybe there's a global apettite for a low-tech life. But the way we see this 'trend' manifesting is for a specific population...
Thinking out loud here because I find this fascinating.
It's easy to forget that despite the globalization of trends through social media, there are still significant regional cultural divides. You and I probably have very similar interests and opinions, but experience them completely differently based on our surroundings.
As a rural Southerner, I had never considered that I wasn't the target audience of such national publications like the New York Times, but it makes sense. I would imagine that cities like NYC are where a majority of trends are incubated and born—then they diffuse outward through media (both social and traditional) to the wider population.
I've not gone full "Luddite", but I have a friend who did for about a year. I mentioned this to some classmates (four left-leaning Southern-born college women) in November-ish and all of them were dumbfounded, even laughing at the concept. I do know a lot of people who have cut down on social media (self-imposed screen time limits, deleting apps, accessing only through their browser, etc.) but the idea of going any further than that seems pretty foreign and shocking to everyone I know.
I think the performance of the aesthetics of “going analog” is where it becomes a sort of “cool girl” trend, similar to veganism. I’m sure there’s a better word than that, but you get my point. Just cutting down on screen time is boring, something that probably everyone and their actual, literal mother has tried. But buying a flip phone or an old iPod, styling the corded earbuds as part of an outfit, that’s what gives it the “cool” factor to become a social media trend. Then, once it diffuses enough to become accessible, it ceases to be a signal of individuality. The trend cycle moves on. It either becomes cringey or is absorbed into a larger cultural identity (example: record players and records as wall decor).
Perfect 👐 I just made a little T*ktok on this same topic - it’s really interesting how it replicates a lot of the same structures of self-surveillance and lifestyle influencing, and how everything becomes commodified and performable - even the act of unplugging. Amazing article as always :)
Thank you Matt :) when everything is performance, how can we be authentic?
Like most things, I think if this has any staying power, it's going to need to go deeper than an aesthetic or hashtag trend. I was kind of surprised to see that analog things are having such a moment. Admittedly, they're having a moment for me personally, but it's from the angle of creating a context for the young kids I'm raising. I stream music, but I also have analog tech I'm comfortable giving my kids so they can have some agency over their cultural consumption without handing them a screen or internet-connected device. I didn't want to buy a $60 hunk of plastic, so I'm experimenting with an open source screen time tool and an NFC sticker. Tweaking a couple little things that I can stick with is going to make a bigger difference than slapping a label on myself and burning out when the trend has run its course.
I'm diving deep on open source and how we can personalize our technology soon — stay tuned!
Most of the women I know who are low tech are not well off. Use your library. Anyone can be an addict and anyone can get sober.
this is great tiffany! i love the comparison haha
Thank you!!! So glad you like this :) big fan
I don't see how veganism being good for the environment and divesting from big tech being good are false statements.
Also, going off big tech social media is a privilege but that doesn't make it a bad idea in my opinion. I get that not everyone has that option. But if you do and you want to, why is that bad?
I will say the consumerism related to goingg analog " does bug me though. As is expecting everyone to do as you do.
Cal Newport uses the term “technoselectionism” which I think is spot on in terms of acknowledging tech WILL be part of life, but we’re capable of making choices and setting limits in how that shows up.
Great read!! Thank you for sharing!