Well, that's a decent analogy. So the guy with alcohol problems can either lock himself up somewhere to make sure he is cut off from any form of alcohol (an inhabited island, maybe?), or find a way to address his problems so that he can live a normal life.
I guess both solutions are valid, it's a matter of preference.
My personal opinion is that my solution is taking more control of my life. "I choose how to use a device to my benefit". Other solution seems to be applying external restrictions to supplement the lack of control. "I can not control my urge to disuse the device, so I'd better throw it away, lock it up etc.". I like my approach more, but both are valid of course.
The important point is that choosing to not have a smartphone is a totally valid way to "address [one's] problems" in order to "live a normal life," and I think it's uncharitable to dismiss it as some kind of escapism or isolation.
I mean, come on — preferring a low-tech phone is not like fleeing to an uninhabited island. To use my (perhaps silly) analogy, it's more like choosing not to keep any booze at home. Or to leave home without a hip flask. ;)
Think about how weird it is that you would consider not having a smartphone as equivalent to "locking oneself up somewhere." Almost nobody had a smartphone until 2008.
I guess both solutions are valid, it's a matter of preference.
My personal opinion is that my solution is taking more control of my life. "I choose how to use a device to my benefit". Other solution seems to be applying external restrictions to supplement the lack of control. "I can not control my urge to disuse the device, so I'd better throw it away, lock it up etc.". I like my approach more, but both are valid of course.