6 ms·

Although I understand what you're saying, email and YouTube access is not the same as water. Depriving someone of water would be the same as depriving them of l

by thera2 5y ago

Although I understand what you're saying, email and YouTube access is not the same as water. Depriving someone of water would be the same as depriving them of life, which is not true of email, YouTube, and whatever g-services.

bobbylarrybobby 5y ago
It’s pretty much impossible to function in modern society without an email address that you can rely on.
- jolmg 5y ago
  But Google isn't the only provider of email addresses. In contrast, water utilities typically hold monopoly over their region. EDIT: Many people are replying with some variant that the problem is that Google can block the email account that people have tied to their financial and government services. But the same is true of any other email provider. If Google is somehow turned into a public utility, how does that solve the problem for those that are locked out of their email accounts by Fastmail, for instance? Make Fastmail a public utility too, or somehow regulate it? But it's an Australian company, so kind of outside of American jurisdiction. Or regulate the addresses themselves? Put up a law that says that only US public utilities can administer emails on the .com domain? I don't really understand what people are proposing. Or is the proposal just to regulate gmail.com addresses in particular? Treat them as the exception and incentivize more people to use that one provider so they get the protections offered by the proposed regulation.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    It could be very difficult or impossible to access some accounts that use the email address for two factor authentication. And these are typically the most critical accounts.
    - entropicdrifter 5y ago
      I mean, that's really on the user for not setting up more than one 2FA method for their highly critical accounts
      - colordrops 5y ago
        That's for properly engineered services. There are many services that won't grant access without your email after auth has expired.
  - basch 5y ago
    However, even with an email address, what are the chances you eventually try and email someone who has gmail. If you get put on the spam list, youre as good as not existing. In concept thats not that different than having an internal account shut down. You still dont exist to google, or any of their patrons.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I don't know where I stand on the public utility argument, but to make the strongest possible case for this analogy: most peoples' online lives (including their financials) are tied to a singular email address. That email address forms the ground truth for their identity, including being able to access services that they've lost their credentials for. Google's ability to unilaterally revoke access to the account that ties you to your banking accounts, your state's online service portals, &c. gives them the kind of power that we'd normally only see in regional monopolies like water utilities.
    - jolmg 5y ago
      > gives them the kind of power that we'd normally only see in regional monopolies like water utilities. No access to water from the only provider in your reach, especially if you're kind of broke, really doesn't seem equal to having your email account blocked, when people have very accessible choices of email providers and what they tie to it. The situation sucks, but looking at this from a public utility perspective seems like an XY problem.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > when people have very accessible choices of email providers and what they tie to it. I think this point might have been true 15 or 20 years ago, but I suspect that it no longer is on either front: * E-mail is increasingly non-federated and subject to Google's dictates w/r/t delivery guarantees, origin identification, &c. These aren't bad things; e-mail was a mess before Google started taking it seriously! But it does result in a sort of natural dominance: smaller providers have to play by Google's rules to ensure delivery; large institutions are less likely to debug delivery issues to smaller providers. In other words, I have to be willing to accept a certain amount of second-class treatment. * It's been my experience that my ability to not tie things to my e-mail has diminished over the years. More recent government systems and financial accounts require a valid e-mail; e-mail + password is now the default setting for creating an account on most services. Even when my e-mail is strictly optional for a service, it frequently operates as a safety net (recovery codes, poor man's 2FA, &c). Put another way: my inbox is treated as the high-availability, high-reliability delivery mechanism.
  - buran77 5y ago
    No, but Google holds monopoly over that email address that you've been using and passing around for years, and all the data associated to it. Losing access to it can prove to be a major issue. Of course this is nowhere near as critical as water, food, or shelter. But in the modern world losing access to your long time email address, like a phone number, will cause some pain. I see no reason not to put such a responsibility on Google or companies of similar size which are so tightly integrated with the critical modern infrastructure. I think we need to look at the utility of the service in the world and society we live in. Things change, 400 years ago a mill was the first utility in the US. That doesn't quite fit the definition anymore these days.
    - ljm 5y ago
      A phone number is less of a problem as you have portability. Or you can have it. In the UK for example, regulation means that you can automatically transfer your number between providers at no cost. It's a painless process. That's going to be a lot more difficult when your email address is tied to a certain domain, like gmail. I think there has to be a different kind of solution there, that is more accessible to the layman than setting up your own domain and dealing with MX records and stuff.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      If a monopoly over your essential email address is the motivation, then every single provider no matter the size has a monopoly over your email address. There's no reason to limit your judgement to "companies of similar size". Would you argue that ProtonMail and Fastmail and so forth are equally responsible for your email address? Let's go further. Is Apple a public utility? If I buy an iPhone and it's painful to lose it, doesn't Apple have a monopoly over my iPhone given that they have kill switches and update privileges? Is Hertz a public utility? If I rent a car and it becomes very painful to lose it, doesn't Hertz have a monopoly over my essential car?
      - buran77 5y ago
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Not if you're allowed to build a well, which is a lot of places. Install a pump. Same for electricity - solar and huge ass batteries for the night. Definetly not only providers despite being classified as utilities.
  - vvillena 5y ago
    In some countries water distribution companies are not the same as the commercial suppliers, and you can freely contract your supply with any company you want. The issue isn't that people are free to choose any email address. The problem is that Google effectively holds people hostage once they get involved with its ecosystem. And due to its sheer size and power, no one can afford to be banned by Google. And there's no real way to appeal. It's a rights regression of sorts.
- darig 5y ago
  ok boomer
- rch 5y ago
  I believe your local public library should be able to provide this, even though it probably doesn't at present.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
russian-hacker 5y ago
There is only one Google/YouTube. Water is plentiful.

by thera2 5y ago

bobbylarrybobby 5y ago

It’s pretty much impossible to function in modern society without an email address that you can rely on.

jolmg 5y ago
But Google isn't the only provider of email addresses. In contrast, water utilities typically hold monopoly over their region. EDIT: Many people are replying with some variant that the problem is that Google can block the email account that people have tied to their financial and government services. But the same is true of any other email provider. If Google is somehow turned into a public utility, how does that solve the problem for those that are locked out of their email accounts by Fastmail, for instance? Make Fastmail a public utility too, or somehow regulate it? But it's an Australian company, so kind of outside of American jurisdiction. Or regulate the addresses themselves? Put up a law that says that only US public utilities can administer emails on the .com domain? I don't really understand what people are proposing. Or is the proposal just to regulate gmail.com addresses in particular? Treat them as the exception and incentivize more people to use that one provider so they get the protections offered by the proposed regulation.
- colordrops 5y ago
  It could be very difficult or impossible to access some accounts that use the email address for two factor authentication. And these are typically the most critical accounts.
  - entropicdrifter 5y ago
    I mean, that's really on the user for not setting up more than one 2FA method for their highly critical accounts
    - colordrops 5y ago
      That's for properly engineered services. There are many services that won't grant access without your email after auth has expired.
- basch 5y ago
  However, even with an email address, what are the chances you eventually try and email someone who has gmail. If you get put on the spam list, youre as good as not existing. In concept thats not that different than having an internal account shut down. You still dont exist to google, or any of their patrons.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I don't know where I stand on the public utility argument, but to make the strongest possible case for this analogy: most peoples' online lives (including their financials) are tied to a singular email address. That email address forms the ground truth for their identity, including being able to access services that they've lost their credentials for. Google's ability to unilaterally revoke access to the account that ties you to your banking accounts, your state's online service portals, &c. gives them the kind of power that we'd normally only see in regional monopolies like water utilities.
  - jolmg 5y ago
    > gives them the kind of power that we'd normally only see in regional monopolies like water utilities. No access to water from the only provider in your reach, especially if you're kind of broke, really doesn't seem equal to having your email account blocked, when people have very accessible choices of email providers and what they tie to it. The situation sucks, but looking at this from a public utility perspective seems like an XY problem.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > when people have very accessible choices of email providers and what they tie to it. I think this point might have been true 15 or 20 years ago, but I suspect that it no longer is on either front: * E-mail is increasingly non-federated and subject to Google's dictates w/r/t delivery guarantees, origin identification, &c. These aren't bad things; e-mail was a mess before Google started taking it seriously! But it does result in a sort of natural dominance: smaller providers have to play by Google's rules to ensure delivery; large institutions are less likely to debug delivery issues to smaller providers. In other words, I have to be willing to accept a certain amount of second-class treatment. * It's been my experience that my ability to not tie things to my e-mail has diminished over the years. More recent government systems and financial accounts require a valid e-mail; e-mail + password is now the default setting for creating an account on most services. Even when my e-mail is strictly optional for a service, it frequently operates as a safety net (recovery codes, poor man's 2FA, &c). Put another way: my inbox is treated as the high-availability, high-reliability delivery mechanism.
- buran77 5y ago
  No, but Google holds monopoly over that email address that you've been using and passing around for years, and all the data associated to it. Losing access to it can prove to be a major issue. Of course this is nowhere near as critical as water, food, or shelter. But in the modern world losing access to your long time email address, like a phone number, will cause some pain. I see no reason not to put such a responsibility on Google or companies of similar size which are so tightly integrated with the critical modern infrastructure. I think we need to look at the utility of the service in the world and society we live in. Things change, 400 years ago a mill was the first utility in the US. That doesn't quite fit the definition anymore these days.
  - ljm 5y ago
    A phone number is less of a problem as you have portability. Or you can have it. In the UK for example, regulation means that you can automatically transfer your number between providers at no cost. It's a painless process. That's going to be a lot more difficult when your email address is tied to a certain domain, like gmail. I think there has to be a different kind of solution there, that is more accessible to the layman than setting up your own domain and dealing with MX records and stuff.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    If a monopoly over your essential email address is the motivation, then every single provider no matter the size has a monopoly over your email address. There's no reason to limit your judgement to "companies of similar size". Would you argue that ProtonMail and Fastmail and so forth are equally responsible for your email address? Let's go further. Is Apple a public utility? If I buy an iPhone and it's painful to lose it, doesn't Apple have a monopoly over my iPhone given that they have kill switches and update privileges? Is Hertz a public utility? If I rent a car and it becomes very painful to lose it, doesn't Hertz have a monopoly over my essential car?
    - buran77 5y ago
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  Not if you're allowed to build a well, which is a lot of places. Install a pump. Same for electricity - solar and huge ass batteries for the night. Definetly not only providers despite being classified as utilities.
- vvillena 5y ago
  In some countries water distribution companies are not the same as the commercial suppliers, and you can freely contract your supply with any company you want. The issue isn't that people are free to choose any email address. The problem is that Google effectively holds people hostage once they get involved with its ecosystem. And due to its sheer size and power, no one can afford to be banned by Google. And there's no real way to appeal. It's a rights regression of sorts.
darig 5y ago
ok boomer
rch 5y ago
I believe your local public library should be able to provide this, even though it probably doesn't at present.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

russian-hacker 5y ago

There is only one Google/YouTube. Water is plentiful.