The ‘digital detox’ industry has spawned a number of apps and tech-free retreats to help us spend less time on our phones. But do these services really help us in the long run?
As 2024 drew to a close, I was unsurprised to spot a common theme among the ‘ins and outs’ lists popping up across social media platforms. From ‘logging off’, to ‘reducing screen time’, to ‘touching grass’, to ‘deleting social media apps’, it’s starkly apparent that in 2025, people really want to get offline. There’s research to back this up: 47 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds view their online activities as more disruptive than beneficial to their well-being, while around 46 per cent of Gen Z are already actively trying to reduce their screen time.
This mounting interest in spending less time on our phones has catalysed the creation of the ‘digital detox’ industry, which offers consumers goods and services to help them log off, from productivity-boosting apps to technology-free wellness retreats. While the digital detox apps market size was worth around 0.39 billion dollars in 2023, it’s predicted to swell to around 19.44 billion by 2032. Meanwhile, global search interest for “digital detox retreat” rose by 50 per cent in 2024.
“The appeal of digital disconnection has never been higher, and it comes at a time when we’ve never been more online,” says Dr Zeena Feldman, Senior Lecturer and Associate Professor in Digital Culture at King’s College London. “The two phenomena – disconnection and hyperconnectivity – are intimately related. The imperative to be online has never been stronger. It’s no wonder people want a break.”
There’s much evidence to suggest that excessive phone use is causing negative ramifications on our mental health. 54 per cent of young people reported losing sleep due to phone or internet after midnight; almost half of British teens feel addicted to social media; high social media use correlates with high rates of irritability, anxiety and depression. The list goes on. With this in mind, it’s unsurprising some entrepreneurs have attempted to come up with solutions to the smartphone addiction crisis.
But are apps and ‘offline’ holidays really the answer? Given how deeply entrenched in our lives technology has become, I’m sceptical of these supposed ‘quick fixes’. I’m especially sceptical of smartphone apps which are supposedly designed to get us off our smartphones. Opal is keen to “empower humans to focus better every day” by enabling users to block other apps on their phone. Similarly, Jomo promises to help its users “build healthy screen time habits and thrive in the attention economy”. Forest is another productivity app which aims to help users “stay focused”.
But do these apps really work? When I downloaded Opal for a few weeks, the results were laughable. While I am sure these apps can be useful and beneficial to many, in my experience, using Opal just made me want to look at my phone even more. It felt like a mere sticking plaster as opposed to something which tackled the root causes of tech addiction: I kept increasing the time limits I was allowing myself to use apps on my phone (and decreasing how long these apps were blocked for). And when I was not on my phone, I felt like I desperately needed to check it. It seemed I was only delaying the inevitable – which was being on my phone.
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that you can’t use an app to cultivate a healthier relationship with technology. “The digital detox industry is a perfect example of capitalism’s ability to monetise our cultural anxieties,” Dr Feldman says. “Now that the tech industry has recognised users’ disaffection, they’re trying to sell us new products like disconnection apps, mindfulness apps and screen time trackers. I’m fascinated by this paradox — the fact that some of us are turning to tech to solve the very problems tech created in the first place.”
The imperative to be online has never been stronger. It’s no wonder people want a break
Digital detoxing is being marketed as a panacea, when in reality it fails to address the root causes of smartphone addiction. We are essentially being sold our own time back and fed the lie that this is revolutionary. Phone-free retreats and apps which promise to reduce your screen time give users the illusion of control, when the issue is far more complicated. The industry also individualises what is clearly a collective issue (it’s worth noting that a few nights at a digital detox retreat can cost hundreds, if not thousands, making them inaccessible to many). Plus, in any case, tech isn’t all bad: the internet is a great way of connecting us and has proven to be a great accessibility tool.
The notion that it’s possible (or desirable) to ‘log off’ completely creates a faux separation between the online world and the IRL world. We need to acknowledge that choosing not to participate in digital culture at all is no longer a luxury available to us. “Today, digital culture is part and parcel of how we live everyday life, from work to leisure activities to intimate relationships,” Dr Feldman says. Perhaps our discussion and action should be focused on thinking about how to improve our relationship with tech and its tools in the long-term, rather than turning to the digital detox industry for short-term fixes.
The complexity of the issues surrounding the consequences of using the internet cannot merely be solved by telling people to ‘touch grass’. And government legislation surrounding online harms is simply a starting point too – they are inadequate in wholly tackling the underlying issues and punitively limit the online rights of the most marginalised groups in society rather than protect them. We need to start turning our attention to the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and the figures behind other tech companies and hold them accountable for orchestrating this crisis.
In the meantime, the good news is we have more agency than we realise: we do not need these apps to create better habits. Instead, we should ask questions about who owns the internet and these technologies, what they are being used for, and the conditions that promote our dependence on them.