Your reply is thoughtful, so I'll add comments below. I am wondering
about your definition of individual choice in relation to addiction.

In my anecdotal research for Digital Vegan [1] I asked a fair number
of people about their smartphone and social media use, often in an
annoyingly Socratic fashion.

> We can say we live in a world of endless distractions that keep us
from more worthy causes, but we are also choosing to spend our time
being distracted. This is stating the obvious, but we must want to
be endlessly distracted, otherwise we wouldn't do it.

In my research I picked up on very little joy or excitement. This is a
notable contrast to my own experience of technology as a young
person. Being a geek, when I was 20 or 30 my passion for all things
new was raging, and it still is at 50. But for people I spoke to in
2020, even quite nerdy types, there's a definite sense around
technology of misery interspersed with moments of satisfaction/relief.

Psychologically, and based on experiences with seeing addiction
destroy lives, it seems quite consistent with dependency and lack of
control. Of course the sample is biased. They are by definition, the
kind of people who want to talk to sceptical researchers. I am also
fortunate enough to know psychotherapists and other psychology
professionals who treat dependency disorders, but that obviously skews
my view toward the pathological.

> Perhaps the proper question is what level of technology is
acceptable in our lives.

This is the conclusion I came to as well. Not just the amount but
the quality. We can tolerate a lot of technology in our lives if
it's "healthy". Unfortunately much technology today is hostile, and
designed to exploit/abuse the user rather than be a tool for their
empowerment. Thats one of the largest changes between 2000 and 2020.

> Lots of apps are also explicitly designed to be addictive. Once you
have a phone, it's not really possible to close the door to some and
allow others, at least not to a satisfactory level.

A big theme in Digital Vegan is a more sophisticated analysis of
"addiction", which is itself a complex subject. Addiction involves
other life factors, availability, social acceptability, poverty, and
much more. As with drugs and alcohol, callously saying that it is
wholly a persons "choice" is partial.

A big factor is peer pressure and social coercion. Many people who
successfully quit dependencies do so by getting out of a circle of
"friends" who amplify their behaviour. The social acceptability of
abusive technologies, and subtle forms of control and abuse mediated
by technology is part of the bigger picture. Take for example the
emergence extremely hostile technologies like so-called "Boss-ware"
that some groups (again poverty plays a part) have forced upon them.

> Ultimately, if the technology is not serving you, you have the
choice to not use it.

This is worthy of a book or PhD research project in itself. The person
who states this in terms that resonate with me with is Vint Cerf. I
will quote a little but also paraphrase him in my own way by saying;

"At one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a
living. But the important right in that case was the right to make
a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a
right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put
it. Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself" [2]

As I see it, if we are to respect the more fundamental human rights of
"life, liberty and security of person" then the greater human right
may be NOT to be connected to the internet. It is freedom from
technologies at least insofar as we are free to manage our own affairs
and engagement.

Other than the European "Right to be forgotten" and legislation
protecting us from surveillance and tracking, I'm not aware of any
popular formulations of this general principle other than Vint Cerf's.

Right now I think people are being forced to stable horses in their
backyards, at the behest of landowners, and under the false premise
that you need one for work.

> can we turn our back on entertaining, pleasurable technology that
wastes our time to some extent, to allow natural physical life back
in?

Yes we can. The decriminalisation of recreational drugs across the US
and Europe signals a move towards recognising people's agency and
restoring responsibility over individual lives. But the real problems
with artifacts and systems of dependency lies not just with the
individual, but in the social fabric around each of us. Most people
cannot do it alone. Our tech addiction is societal, and we must
collectively recognise the systems of abuse (I liken to big-tech
companies to drug barons), pushing and insinuating unnecessary
technology into our lives, if we are to use technology in a healthy
way.

[1] https://digitalvegan.net

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/case-...