> For those apprehensive about giving up their devices, the “digital fasting” is entirely voluntary – the island has a fully functioning mobile network.

Then there is no story

It riled you up, marketing strategy perfectly executed.

Yep.

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Can't you voluntarily choose to not use a phone anywhere? What makes this island special then?

It's a publicity stunt, like how Sommarøy a few year back declared it was the world’s first time-free zone. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/norway-sommaroy-islan...

Shut up nerd, let them make murder island.

So go to literally anywhere else in the planet. This is a great idea I really hope it sets a trend.

Right? We're so sorry that you can't stand the thought of other people not being on their phones in order to find out what plant they are looking at, but there really is a very simple solution. Don't go there, and don't be one of those people looking at those plants.

You write as if I'm foaming at the mouth typing this. I'm using the comments section to comment about something. I think it's dumb and I won't think about it ever again.

In any case it's not actually phone-free, just a publicity stunt.

The way that I phrased my comment was a little rude. I apologize. I was meaning to agree with the parent poster, but in doing so I was uncharitable with my interpretation of your comment. I shouldn't have taken such a dismissive attitude, that doesn't really help anything.

They put a sticker on people's devices and ask them top pretty please not use them. Anyone can still go there and use their phones as much as they like. It's another social advertising campaign by 'Parks and Wildlife Finland', intended to be spread around internet forums and social media. Doesn't cost them anything, it's a clever idea. And some food for thought, you'd never know about it if you weren't online, nor would you ever have heard of this random island. Of which Finland has hundreds of similar ones.

I love the sticker idea to break habits. Very smart.

You can do you at almost every place on the planet. Why can't there be one place where you don't choose to go?

The converse is also true: If someone likes to be without phone, couldn't they go literally anywhere on the planet, and just choose to leave their phone at home without that place they're going to officially encouraging them to do so?

Or is it about the disturbance caused by other people using their phones? ...or maybe to have a plausible story to tell the people who tried to reach you? ("Sorry you couldn't reach me at the weekend, boss, I was at this island in Finland where ...").

I can't speak to GP but I would definitely say that phones everywhere are a nuisance. Google "Ruined by Instagram" for plenty of lists.

I think this is a lovely initiative and I think it would be great if it could cause a bit of a trend.

The nice thing about places that were supposedly ruined by Instagram is that most of them were already overcrowded and boring anyway.

As an Australian it's hilarious to talk to tourists and hear they're going to get a bus from Melbourne to the 12 Apostles and back, which is an 8 hour round trip, but aren't planning to spend time at the rest of the spectacularly beautiful coastline or national parks in between. The most popular tourist destinations all seem to be like that: you go there to cross them off the list even though comparably beautiful and much less popular attractions are nearby, for the sake of going somewhere recognisable.

There's nothing wrong with going to a few well known spots in a holiday, but if you just go straight from tourist trap to tourist trap you'll miss all the most enjoyable things.

No offence but you sound like an upset junkie trying to justify their addiction instead of admitting you have a problem. When I am in nature I never touch my phone (besides an odd picture here or there) because I am too busy being immersed by the experience itself which is far more enjoyable than anything on my phone. If I want to read an ebook I am sure as hell not doing it in nature.

Honestly, I wish we had more paternalism as a lot of the problems we have in the West is because we refuse to apply objective moral standards to people which has resulted in many self-destructive tendencies in many individuals with governments collectively shrugging to themselves everywhere because that is what the people want. Good for Finland for having a spine and pointing out the obvious that smartphones are terrible for people especially when they are trying to relax in nature.

Pro tip: if you start a statement with "no offense but" that is an admission that you know what comes next is offensive.

No offense, but I like dogs.

This is super offensive!!

No offense, but that soccer team just can't score any goals!

In your moral framework, am I allowed to use my smartphone when I’m out trail running?

Caltopo has helped me not get lost on long loops where turning around isn’t an option.

>... a lot of the problems we have in the West is ... obvious that smartphones are terrible for people especially when they are trying to relax in nature.

Over here in the Far East, everyone has a phone with them, whether they're in the city or up in the mountains enjoying nature. If you get attacked by a bear or have some other emergency, not having a phone means you'll probably die, so not carrying one is a good way to get a Darwin Award.

So weird when people try to blame things on "the West".

Are there really that many bears in the cities of the Far East? Shouldn't you do something about them instead of waiting for those panicked phone calls?

In the cities? No. Where did I ever indicate that?

Bears are common in the mountains. No, nothing needs to "be done" about those bears. Wear bear bells and be cautious.

Sorry, I was just kidding (but it wasn't obvious at all). My bad :)

Soooo... don't go there?

It's like that time my mom bought a VIP ticket to a Drake show so she could talk to him afterwards and tell him to his face that she doesn't much care for rap music. (this anecdote is a complete fabrication but I had fun writing it)

(your mom) "Drake! I don't appreciate your music."

(Drake) "Oh, I'm... sorry."

(your mom, nodding emphatically) "I came here to give you a piece of my mind. I paid $740 to get me and my children in here so I can say this to your face."

(Drake, nodding) "Madam, please... it is your right."

(your mom) "Well I didn't like it! I don't like any of your music!"

(Drake, nodding again) "Ma'am, I'm not sure I like it either. I'm just selling records here."

No, no, no. That's too paternalistic. The poster has to identify plants, and maybe take pictures with their zombie phone.

Do they also use their device to block stairs or crosswalks? If their first reaction to this was "but I need it", then maybe.

The point of a comment system is to discuss the content of an article. This is what I did. The likelihood of me going there either way is pretty small.

Sure. We're discussing it. We just don't agree with you.

Your response sounds rebellious-teen juvenile. The place isn't meant for you then obviously. No one's telling you to clean your room.

When you make belittling comments like you just did, it really takes away from your point. It wasn't necessary to lower the conversation into name calling (i.e. rebellious-teen juvenile). You could have made your point without lashing out.

To be fair this is just a marketing campaign some people on this thread seem to be taking way to seriously for some reason…

This can be a pleasant community if you follow the guidelines and avoid this sort of name-calling.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

So don't go to the island?