While Stack Overflow is great for solving issues, I still had to block the "Hot Network Questions" suggestions from the sidebar because it was an almost systematic distraction that would inevitably send me down a rabbit-hole of unrelated questions.

Any system designed to solve the attention problem will have to be opinionated, blocking specific websites, or at least parts of it, I guess it's an interesting case study for machine learning.

I did this as well and it definitely helped. For Stack Overflow I've also removed the left sidebar entirely and upped the minimum width of the main content (so code doesn't get cut off nearly as much).

Another helpful one was removing the "next page" links on Reddit (I use the classic version). That way I can check on some things I'm interested in, but not get carried away.

I'm considering doing the same for Hacker News.

Thanks for the idea! That's what always gets me too!

How did you do that?

I used an adblocker to block the element (the ID is #hot-network-questions).

I didn't say that this product will "block" sites (traditionally speaking).

For example, if you need StackOverflow it can replace it's UI with only a search box and results list, preventing you from clicking related links.

When you go on reddit, it could asks you which subreddit you need and why before letting you in, reinforcing the reason you need to visit the site. I think it can be powerful - requiring active input from the user as to what his intentions are. If you need to write "I'm really bored" as a reason you go on Facebook, I think there's a pretty good chance you'll end up closing it.

I believe there are hidden patterns that you might be able to break when the product helps you see and understand these patterns.

That's a nice idea, explain your reasons for visiting any site. Also enter how much time you expect to spend there, and get reminders, I'd say.

Then don't decide what to block based on content. Decide what to block either based upon the users express choice (the tool would empower the user, not dictate a lifestyle to them) or possibly based upon observation of where the user spends the most time.

The main problem I see with the concept is that it has a poor intellectual foundation. I'd like to see a better explanation of why learning is so dangerous.

Obviously "learning" in itself is not dangerous, but the amount of time you spend learning instead of things that actually matter to you.

Feeds. Gotta block feeds out of your life. The never-ending treadmill of new information is what's really problematic, at least for me.

Ironically feeds made me spend way less time on the internet. Instead of jumping around half a dozen different sites and dealing with their ass engagement-focused ux, I just skim their RSS feeds once at the end of the day. ~150-200 new articles a day and I scroll and skim through them in about 20 mins.

Maybe I'll read 2-5 particularly interesting articles in depth, but even from what I'd call great websites a lot of the content is just noise and not worth the time spent to read. That really becomes apparent when you have a pretty barebones, super focused and condensed list.

I just stick to HN. I run out of new things to look at after about 45 minutes on it.

I would have to agree.

Overeating, overfeeding.... They share a lot of similarities.

Stack Overflow finally listened to all my pleas on their yearly survey and now turning off the Hot Network Questions is at least a configurable option!