5 ms·

> I am appalled at how many people use Gmail, giving up their privacy The article is literally about cross-vendor E2E email encryption. I mean, we all unders

by ajross 1y ago

> I am appalled at how many people use Gmail, giving up their privacy The article is literally about cross-vendor E2E email encryption. I mean, we all understand that you mean to invoke the Standard HN Litany Against Google here. But surely you at least should nod to the fact that the linked article stands as a point against your position, no?

Kiboneu 1y ago
I think he has a point. Slack and discord used to have IRC and XMPP, which made the decision to switch seem safer in light of the issues we experience today (holding backlog hostage for a fee, advertising, a/b tests). They timed the depreciation of these bridges so that it had minimal impact on their sales due to the existing network effects and captive audiences (employees, mostly). We have seen this played out over and over and over again. It’s tiring, and it would be great for more people to be aware of these market capture tactics to make them less effective.
- ajross 1y ago
  > Slack and discord Slack and Discord aren't Google though? Not understanding the point here. You can use this argument against any product from any manufacturer, it seems like. Are you arguing against interoperability in general? Or taking an absolutist free software position that proprietary tools are never acceptable? Doesn't seem to me like that was the position upthread I was responding to.
  - Kiboneu 1y ago
    The point we are both addressing has to do with a behavioral pattern exhibited by companies with the same incentive model over the past 30 years. Not a re-summarization of an article by one of those companies.
  - theshrike79 1y ago
    Google Talk used to be XMPP too. It's not proprietary tools, it's the fact that they lure you in with open protocols and then rugpull to a proprietary one.
jwr 1y ago
I've seen to many companies call things "open", when they are decidedly not "open" — Google's Android comes to mind, or OpenAI. I don't see an RFC defining that "cross-vendor E2E email encryption" as a standard, so calling it "cross-vendor" is just fluff at this point.

by ajross 1y ago

Kiboneu 1y ago

I think he has a point. Slack and discord used to have IRC and XMPP, which made the decision to switch seem safer in light of the issues we experience today (holding backlog hostage for a fee, advertising, a/b tests). They timed the depreciation of these bridges so that it had minimal impact on their sales due to the existing network effects and captive audiences (employees, mostly). We have seen this played out over and over and over again. It’s tiring, and it would be great for more people to be aware of these market capture tactics to make them less effective.

ajross 1y ago
> Slack and discord Slack and Discord aren't Google though? Not understanding the point here. You can use this argument against any product from any manufacturer, it seems like. Are you arguing against interoperability in general? Or taking an absolutist free software position that proprietary tools are never acceptable? Doesn't seem to me like that was the position upthread I was responding to.
- Kiboneu 1y ago
  The point we are both addressing has to do with a behavioral pattern exhibited by companies with the same incentive model over the past 30 years. Not a re-summarization of an article by one of those companies.
- theshrike79 1y ago
  Google Talk used to be XMPP too. It's not proprietary tools, it's the fact that they lure you in with open protocols and then rugpull to a proprietary one.

jwr 1y ago

I've seen to many companies call things "open", when they are decidedly not "open" — Google's Android comes to mind, or OpenAI. I don't see an RFC defining that "cross-vendor E2E email encryption" as a standard, so calling it "cross-vendor" is just fluff at this point.