Maybe it can work to some degree for some people. But there are other methods that should help much more effectively, without being self-destructive and miserable. I view this solution in similar categories as, say, suggesting someone should drunk themselves off to the point of passing out, because you know... at least they won't scroll at that point probably? And yet there are some very obvious downsides of such approach.
I mean if someone wants to try something in this direction, but without the misery, I'd suggest things like making the screen monochromatic, which will make the content seem less appealing to the brain, but without that being a nuisance.
I did have something similar, but in my case it was an involuntary favor from Meta, as they presented a blocking screen asking whether I agree to use my personal information for targeted ads. The options were I agree or I pay. So I just wouldn't click either and hence I just couldn't access their sites anymore lol. (yeah well, I didn't give up that easily originally, as funnily enough you could find methods to bypass the screens and the APIs in apps would still fully work and let you use it, but it was more trouble than worth it eventually)
There was also Twitter, which had also solved the problem by itself. After the take-over, the quality of content rapidly plummeted so hard, at certain point I just didn't feel like ever visiting the site again.
So I'm almost thankful to these companies for actively pushing people out like that, y'know? I'm just sorry for people still stuck in there, it must be even more miserable presently...
As someone who used to have actually slow phones before: this will not help your doom-scrolling. You will still doom-scroll, but you'll just be frustrated and miserable due to the lags. You're welcome.
So it runs everything locally/in web worker, but there's a monthly quota and it requires a paid plan of $9.99 monthly to keep running it on my own machine?
The meaningful part of open web is small, yes. Sadly there's so much junky pages, nowadays also partially generated by AI, previously by just copy-pasting randomly content of other pages, cluttering search results. It somehow needs to be all filtered out, otherwise it'll end up taking place instead of something more useful... So I'd really wonder how much of the open web is some kind of original content and how much is duplicate/auto-generated junk.
True, although only if the link is actually cached, which I find to be the case far more rarely than before. But it does work and it's still helpful...
Nobody ever clicks that among all the useless junk around it. It should be right there after clicking the three dots already, which already shows basic details about the page. It's not a submenu dropdown anymore like it used to be. Nobody's ever gonna even look below the first paragraph where the main buttons are.
If they wanted to make this any useful at all, if it's so hidden already, they should have made it index the particular archived page revisions list, and display direct links to them along with the date they were taken. Just linking to IA search in the generic way is not gonna help anyone, especially that the page might then turn out to not be archived at all to begin with too.
This is low-key so useless. From the headline I expected some deeper kind of integration, indexing, ability to find old dead pages with useful info more easily.
Nope.
They just throw a generic link in a place hidden so deep that nobody will ever see it. You first need to click the three dots, then find the "More about this page" in the middle, and there it is. I don't know why they bothered announcing it at all, it's so hidden and useless they might as well have not bothered at all. Just copy-paste the website link into the IA search and the end result will be the same but faster.