I use mailbox.org because I can use my own domain and they claim to focus on privacy. And it's hosted in Germany.
But I bet it's missing feature that are essential for others.
Posteo and protonmail are alternatives that friends of mine use.
Not the best, not great UX, but it's f'n email, it can be ugly.
Or there's an embarrassment of riches out there if you prefer to pay someone for a nice web-based zero-management thing. I can't really recommend one, but I was reselling a whitelabel email service with pretty reasonable capacity and featureset to a bunch of businesses for $5/month/user about 5 years ago. A couple of people I know seem to like protonmail.
Some ISPs might even still provide email. Though that leads to a vendor-lock-in problem and you're better paying for something distinct from your ISP IMO. Same goes for the addresses Apple hands out "free" to their users.
The main trick is to remember the old adage: "If you're not paying for it, you are the product" - If you don't want to pay for email then you might as well just stick with google.
Suggestion to other providers is also... something. I have been using other providers. Proton does not allow me to use IMAP on free. Other servers have much spam, which I have been able to clear with some cronjob, but also that is a poor job. Besides... how do you know that other companies are better on serving you? How can I know if they sell my data to China?
And self hosting is tough, even though it is easier than has ever been.
Or the unix philosophy.
> self hosting is tough
Depends on your definition of "tough", I guess - I've spent 0 minutes this year thinking about it (outside of this thread).
> Proton does not allow me to use IMAP on free.
I refer you back to my previous response WRT "free".
> how do you know that other companies are better on serving you? How can I know if they sell my data to China?
So, to summarise:
"baaawww it would take me half an hour's work to set it up!"
"If you don't run your own people could do nefarious things"
...Do you people proof-read at all? I legit don't understand how someone posts something so self-contradictory.
Yes. You can process data “one time” without further access, you don’t need to use data to train an llm to do those kind of stuff.
Separately, the industry standard elsewhere appears to be that if you're a free user your data is used for training, and if you're a paying user it's not.
Permission to use your content
[...]
This license is for the limited purpose of:
[...]
- developing new technologies and services for Google consistent with these terms
> Your content is not used for any other customers. Your content is not human reviewed or used for Generative AI model training outside your domain without permission.
And I think the default assumption has to be that those policies are actually followed. If you think they aren't, the burden of proof is on you to show they aren't.
The amount of times Google has been caught out doing things they shouldn't be means that no, no one has to prove that it's a reasonable assumption that Google follows policies, not even their own.
It's for you to prove that they can be trusted (good luck with that!).
But this seems... right? and long overdue. If they can't look at your data they can't do these things.
The way they are framing this however, yeah that is a bit shady and would likely encourage more people to allow it. Reminds me of the tactics Facebook tried with the app tracking apple did. But... still.
Now if only google could also ask for the permission of the person sending you the email that would be great, but that is a pipe dream.
Instead, they're bundling "Use the data for the functionality" and "Let Google store the data indefinitely, and use for improving any other Google service", which is the part that leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.
For reference, this is the help page the message was linking to: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15604322
Some relevant parts that many comments here seemed to have missed:
> When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
I just got told my Workspace plan is hiking another $2 a month for “AI” features I already have turned off at an administrative level — so I guess Google gets to grope around my wallet for some extra change out of desperation.
If you dont like it take your business elsewhere.
In other contexts the same people are complaining they can't turn new AI features off.
How do you know it’s the same people? That type of wording insinuates this is a type of person who is a hypocrite, yet I have never once saw someone making that claim who also showed it really were the same groups making both arguments. It looks more like a way to discredit separate but tangential groups one doesn’t like by making them look like one big contradiction.
Since today it seems that's no longer a choice.
For example, the weather widget on Android requires Chrome to have location access. Chrome, the web browser. For... a weather widget.
Sorry, no you don't require that. That is a choice on Google's part. Number 1, why does Weather rely on Chrome? That's a choice, and a stupid one. Number 2, why do I need location at all for Weather? Why can I not manually input my City/ZIP?
Remember don't be evil? Those were the days.
That's not an accurate description. It's not "however they want", it's pretty clearly scoped for the data being used across Workspace apps.
> such a great direction to take your service
Also, none of this is new. That setting has been around to control exactly those features for years[0]. It's off by default in some countries, on by default in others, depending on the local laws/regulations.
[0] Here's the archived documentation for the setting from 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210223060113/https://support.g...
Features I used to be able to use yesterday are no longer possible to use without agreeing to that new data sharing, it seems
What's the documentation link?
Yes.
> If you've been using these features for years
I haven't agreed to any of those features explicitly, the thing with flights/reservations appearing in Google Calendar has been a feature for years and don't recall that needing an explicit agreement that Google can use that same data for improving other Google services. It wasn't until today (it seems) they asked for explicit permission for that.
> What's the documentation link?
I think it was linking to https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15604322 but can't confirm 100% since I can't see that modal anymore.
> I think it was linking to https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15604322 but can't confirm 100% since I can't see that modal anymore.
Fair. But I don't think that page is saying what you originally said it did. They're not asking for consent for using data for product improvements or sharing with third parties. Consent is the stated legal basis for using the data for providing the features. Legitimate interest is the basis for using the data for product improvements. I can see no claim about data being shared with third parties.
Ok, lets assume I did accept it (or not), then why ask again? Clearly something has changed, otherwise they'd just use my previous consent (or lack of).
> They're not asking for consent for using data for product improvements
My reading of that is that they are, some highlights you might have missed:
> > When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
That basically says they can use the data as long as it ends up being used for a new product/feature, which can essentially be anything.
They're saying that if you use these features, they have a legal basis (legitimate interest) other than consent to use your data for product improvements.
The only thing they're asking for consent is for providing the features. Which you appear to want to use, and which genuinely can't be provided without access to the data, so where is the problem?
(I don't think it is as unbounded as you claim. They'd still be limited by their other policies, which for Workspace are quite restrictive, and by what EU DPAs would actually find reasonable to be covered by legitimate interest. It is not a free ticket to do anything you want.)
Don’t be ~~evil~~ any more evil than the law lets you get away with
"You agree to let Google […] use your […] content […] *TO* personalize your experience[…]" (my emphasis)
If you don't let them, then under what authority can they have this feature?
> When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
Get your own email domain.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
I think once you understand the context, it does make sense and would make it clear it isn't a "rant", but I also understand that that would require to actually do some reading so easier with a knee-jerk reaction to it instead.
pavel_lishin•6mo ago
oneeyedpigeon•6mo ago
venusenvy47•6mo ago