3 ms·

Not everybody weights privacy (and decentralization and control) vs convenience in the same way. By the way, how many times did you get locked out of your Gmai

by pera 7y ago

Not everybody weights privacy (and decentralization and control) vs convenience in the same way. By the way, how many times did you get locked out of your Gmail account vs how many times did the same happen with your own server?

gfodor 7y ago
Not once. Tbf, I am considering the herculean task of getting off of gmail, but if I were to go with my own server the burden has basically nothing to do with setting up the email server (easy) as this post might suggest, but instead the burden and latent risk involved of having to be personally responsible for operating, maintaining, and being exposed to externialities (like 0days, being blocked by filters, server outages, etc.) Setting up services is trivial compared to the aggregate cost in time, money, and context-switching tax over time of operating them.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > being blocked by filters That's the part that I really don't understand. If the recipient hired someone to throw away their emails, why would that possibly be my job to rectify? I sent them a legitimate email, they hired someone who promised them to throw away spam, but obviously is incompetent at doing so, so it's up to them to hire someone else!?
  - kilburn 7y ago
    Power relationships. Say the recipient is the client that represents 90% of your income. And the incompetent secretary is the boss's daughter. Is it "up to them to hire someone else"? Totally. Will they? No. Your turn. Will you bend backwards to acommodate that client or will you drop it?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      I probably would have avoided ever getting dependent on them to that degree in the first place. But, yeah, sure, I see the point--but my impression is that people automatically see it as their responsibility to figure out why someone else's email provider is throwing away their emails, regardless how much you depend on them.

by pera 7y ago

gfodor 7y ago

Not once. Tbf, I am considering the herculean task of getting off of gmail, but if I were to go with my own server the burden has basically nothing to do with setting up the email server (easy) as this post might suggest, but instead the burden and latent risk involved of having to be personally responsible for operating, maintaining, and being exposed to externialities (like 0days, being blocked by filters, server outages, etc.) Setting up services is trivial compared to the aggregate cost in time, money, and context-switching tax over time of operating them.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> being blocked by filters That's the part that I really don't understand. If the recipient hired someone to throw away their emails, why would that possibly be my job to rectify? I sent them a legitimate email, they hired someone who promised them to throw away spam, but obviously is incompetent at doing so, so it's up to them to hire someone else!?
- kilburn 7y ago
  Power relationships. Say the recipient is the client that represents 90% of your income. And the incompetent secretary is the boss's daughter. Is it "up to them to hire someone else"? Totally. Will they? No. Your turn. Will you bend backwards to acommodate that client or will you drop it?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    I probably would have avoided ever getting dependent on them to that degree in the first place. But, yeah, sure, I see the point--but my impression is that people automatically see it as their responsibility to figure out why someone else's email provider is throwing away their emails, regardless how much you depend on them.