4 ms·

What troubles me about this is how casually we've moved everything to e-mail, on the assumption that everybody can get a "free" e-mail account, even tho the acc

What troubles me about this is how casually we've moved everything to e-mail, on the assumption that everybody can get a "free" e-mail account, even tho the account isn't actually "free" and can be taken away from you without you doing much of anything wrong. Very similar to how a phone-sim has kinda become the de-facto digital ID of most people. In the long term, where does that leave people who can't afford a mobile phone/a paid e-mail account? This is already somewhat of an issue with certain digital services that won't accept e-mail accounts from free providers that are too abused for spam. What happens to the people who can't afford a paid e-mail account when billing and so many other services are moving to digital heavily depending on the availability of e-mail? In contrast to that, I don't have to pay a monthly fee to have a physical mailbox at my door, but that won't get me far with most digital services.

judge2020 7y ago
I'd like to think the reason developers/companies require you have an email address is simply because the availability of free email has been a thing for 20 years. If that changes sometime in the future, I'm sure companies will rethink their sign-up flows to allow other forms of [free] communication to be used. > What happens to the people who can't afford a paid e-mail account when billing and so many other services are moving to digital heavily depending on the availability of e-mail? Unless things change a lot, any company that wants the general public's business will accept free email accounts. The same goes for why every company already requires an email address at all - their target market is anyone with internet (excludes 10% +-1% [0] of the United States) that can create an account with Apple, Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft. 0: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americ...
t0astbread 7y ago
This is also very problematic for people who disagree with the terms of free email providers (like you already mentioned ""free" isn't really free"). Of course, if one is in financial trouble, then they probably have larger problems but it's still worrying to me how privacy is becoming a luxury good instead of the default. It should be seen as a "hidden cost" to any digital service that requires an email address (either monetary for a trustworthy enough email account or in the form of privacy). As an aside, this sort of forcing people into using digital services with terms they don't agree with has become widespread during the pandemic and it kinda makes me angry how no one is thinking about any of this.
icebraining 7y ago
> In contrast to that, I don't have to pay a monthly fee to have a physical mailbox at my door Sure you do: it's either rent or city taxes. The fact that the mailbox comes bundled shouldn't blind you to the reality that you (1) do pay for it, and (2) many people lose access to that address due to inability to keep paying, and it heavily harms them. An email address is comparatively way more easy to maintain, even with the occasional Gmail account closure (which are rare).
- arkades 7y ago
  This is the correct answer. My patient base includes a fairly large homeless cohort. They maintain email addresses; some of them maintain phones. But a physical mailing address is basically unattainable.
ssivark 7y ago
This is very similar to bureaucracies assuming that everyone has a "permanent address". This is most definitely not true for folks who own property, and the overhead of updating changes on the bureaucratic database can be exhausting. Further, homeless people are largely illegible in this setup. As a society we don't seem to give enough of a damn about these issues. Email addresses are just the internet avatar of the problem.
- BenjiWiebe 7y ago
  I'm merely curious, did you intend to use the word ineligible, or am I just not correctly parsing your use of the word illegible?
  - Tyr42 7y ago
    It might be a reference to "seeing like a state", in which the author broadens the word "legible" to mean "readable by the state". For example, a nice organised tree farm, where you chop down trees on 1/30 of the land each year, and loop around every 30 years has nice clear inputs and outputs, and is easier to assess than a old growth forest in which the local village has rights to some wood, but no one really measures what they cut or anything. Under this meaning of the word, homeless people are invisible, or illegible to the state, as they don't have a fixed address.
Sebb767 7y ago
> What troubles me about this is how casually we've moved everything to e-mail, on the assumption that everybody can get a "free" e-mail account, even tho the account isn't actually "free" and can be taken away from you without you doing much of anything wrong. As far as standards go, E-Mail is pretty much one of the more, if not most, open ones out there. You can easily host your own server. The RFCs are free to read and there are many open source solutions doing the hard work for you. Sure, there are problems with spam defenses and acceptance from residential IPs, but overall it's one of the few meshed standards left. And it's nearly impossible to get it any more free; after all, there are many privacy-focused GMail alternatives (i.e. Protonmail) which work just as well. And let's be honest - if we'd be replacing mails, we wouldn't get something better. It would be more like "login via Google/Facebook". I'm really happy E-Mail is still alive.

judge2020 7y ago

I'd like to think the reason developers/companies require you have an email address is simply because the availability of free email has been a thing for 20 years. If that changes sometime in the future, I'm sure companies will rethink their sign-up flows to allow other forms of [free] communication to be used. > What happens to the people who can't afford a paid e-mail account when billing and so many other services are moving to digital heavily depending on the availability of e-mail? Unless things change a lot, any company that wants the general public's business will accept free email accounts. The same goes for why every company already requires an email address at all - their target market is anyone with internet (excludes 10% +-1% [0] of the United States) that can create an account with Apple, Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft. 0: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americ...

t0astbread 7y ago

This is also very problematic for people who disagree with the terms of free email providers (like you already mentioned ""free" isn't really free"). Of course, if one is in financial trouble, then they probably have larger problems but it's still worrying to me how privacy is becoming a luxury good instead of the default. It should be seen as a "hidden cost" to any digital service that requires an email address (either monetary for a trustworthy enough email account or in the form of privacy). As an aside, this sort of forcing people into using digital services with terms they don't agree with has become widespread during the pandemic and it kinda makes me angry how no one is thinking about any of this.

icebraining 7y ago

> In contrast to that, I don't have to pay a monthly fee to have a physical mailbox at my door Sure you do: it's either rent or city taxes. The fact that the mailbox comes bundled shouldn't blind you to the reality that you (1) do pay for it, and (2) many people lose access to that address due to inability to keep paying, and it heavily harms them. An email address is comparatively way more easy to maintain, even with the occasional Gmail account closure (which are rare).

arkades 7y ago
This is the correct answer. My patient base includes a fairly large homeless cohort. They maintain email addresses; some of them maintain phones. But a physical mailing address is basically unattainable.

ssivark 7y ago

This is very similar to bureaucracies assuming that everyone has a "permanent address". This is most definitely not true for folks who own property, and the overhead of updating changes on the bureaucratic database can be exhausting. Further, homeless people are largely illegible in this setup. As a society we don't seem to give enough of a damn about these issues. Email addresses are just the internet avatar of the problem.

BenjiWiebe 7y ago
I'm merely curious, did you intend to use the word ineligible, or am I just not correctly parsing your use of the word illegible?
- Tyr42 7y ago
  It might be a reference to "seeing like a state", in which the author broadens the word "legible" to mean "readable by the state". For example, a nice organised tree farm, where you chop down trees on 1/30 of the land each year, and loop around every 30 years has nice clear inputs and outputs, and is easier to assess than a old growth forest in which the local village has rights to some wood, but no one really measures what they cut or anything. Under this meaning of the word, homeless people are invisible, or illegible to the state, as they don't have a fixed address.

Sebb767 7y ago

> What troubles me about this is how casually we've moved everything to e-mail, on the assumption that everybody can get a "free" e-mail account, even tho the account isn't actually "free" and can be taken away from you without you doing much of anything wrong. As far as standards go, E-Mail is pretty much one of the more, if not most, open ones out there. You can easily host your own server. The RFCs are free to read and there are many open source solutions doing the hard work for you. Sure, there are problems with spam defenses and acceptance from residential IPs, but overall it's one of the few meshed standards left. And it's nearly impossible to get it any more free; after all, there are many privacy-focused GMail alternatives (i.e. Protonmail) which work just as well. And let's be honest - if we'd be replacing mails, we wouldn't get something better. It would be more like "login via Google/Facebook". I'm really happy E-Mail is still alive.