4 ms·

Playing devil's advocate here... one cannot expect a free service without said service providing some form of income to the company providing the service. There

Playing devil's advocate here... one cannot expect a free service without said service providing some form of income to the company providing the service. Therefore, if one were to desire a service with the expectation of absolute privacy, one should expect to pay for that service.

Black101 5y ago
right, but it cost them barely anything to host email at scale
- nexuist 5y ago
  I feel like this is an impossible assumption to make. DIY email hosting is a massive PITA, there's an extremely small chance it gets easier as your in/out data transfer gets higher.
  - Black101 5y ago
    > DIY email hosting is a massive PITA Once you figure that out, it takes very little effort and resources to add a seconds user. Especially if you limit disk usage.
jlkuester7 5y ago
Exactly. If you are not paying for the service, you are the product. fastmail.com starts at $3/mo. If you care about privacy, it is a small price to pay. If you would rather keep your $3 and trade your data to Google for Gmail service, that is your choice too...
rainonmoon 5y ago
This isn't a novel assertion, but for just now un-novel it is, I'm amazed it isn't more often accompanied by the obvious conclusion: that the companies who profit from a) creating a market for personal data and then b) hoarding it also have a responsibility to be transparent about it. I'm sure a lot of people accept that premise, that if the product is free, you're the product, etc. But the ways in which that's true are deliberately obfuscated behind language like, "We collect your personal data to improve your experience/our product etc." If we can all agree that it's reasonable to pay, if not in money, then in personal data, why not have the terms presented and advertised clearly? I'm asking rhetorically, because of course if the incentives lay in transparency, a company would be transparent, therefore if they aren't transparent, the incentives obviously lie elsewhere.

Black101 5y ago

right, but it cost them barely anything to host email at scale

nexuist 5y ago
I feel like this is an impossible assumption to make. DIY email hosting is a massive PITA, there's an extremely small chance it gets easier as your in/out data transfer gets higher.
- Black101 5y ago
  > DIY email hosting is a massive PITA Once you figure that out, it takes very little effort and resources to add a seconds user. Especially if you limit disk usage.

jlkuester7 5y ago

Exactly. If you are not paying for the service, you are the product. fastmail.com starts at $3/mo. If you care about privacy, it is a small price to pay. If you would rather keep your $3 and trade your data to Google for Gmail service, that is your choice too...

rainonmoon 5y ago

This isn't a novel assertion, but for just now un-novel it is, I'm amazed it isn't more often accompanied by the obvious conclusion: that the companies who profit from a) creating a market for personal data and then b) hoarding it also have a responsibility to be transparent about it. I'm sure a lot of people accept that premise, that if the product is free, you're the product, etc. But the ways in which that's true are deliberately obfuscated behind language like, "We collect your personal data to improve your experience/our product etc." If we can all agree that it's reasonable to pay, if not in money, then in personal data, why not have the terms presented and advertised clearly? I'm asking rhetorically, because of course if the incentives lay in transparency, a company would be transparent, therefore if they aren't transparent, the incentives obviously lie elsewhere.