Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 309 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#91

Post by thfuran »

hvdijk wrote: post #71

Are you overreacting? In my opinion, depending on how long the suspension lasts, you may be, though not necessarily. You sent unsolicited bulk e-mail. That is spam. It is possible that your mail helped some people, but anyone who had set up their own filtering to prevent the original mail from coming through would then only see it because of your followup, and additionally the "To" list may well have been spoofed as…

If their obligation is to stop the sending of spam, then why is it right that they also block all other uses of the account and all access to all linked accounts? How could it possibly be the case that that is the minimal restriction they could place to prevent sending emails? Surely they could just...not allow the sending of emails from an account.

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#92

Post by jstanley »

elif wrote: post #81
Grustaf wrote: post #30

When you put it this way, it's really quite remarkable how tenuous our hold is on even paid for digital services. There is really nothing you could do with a car to prompt the car maker to take it from you. And the state will only take it if you break the law in particularly dangerous ways. When it comes to other possessions it's even harder for anyone to take them away from you. If I take a kitchen knife and stab so…

Cars are also digital service platforms which can and do take away things. I am currently playing a safety score minigame to unlock enhanced driving features. If I pay $2000 my software will enable my minivan to have a 0-60 of a Ferrari. This is all premised upon a connectivity package I'm obligated to pay for but have been gifted for a year by the manufacturer. To put it more bluntly, my eyeballs are watched by AI t…

What car is this?

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#93

Post by KMnO4 »

chrismorgan wrote: post #64
dlowe-net wrote: post #37

An important tip if you intend to send everything to gmail. Do NOT send everything to gmail via forward. Every bit of spam you forward is going to count against your domain name. I had someone who did this on a community server and it wrecked our rating for a while. Instead, have gmail pick up your email via pop3. This will avoid the "spam origin/relay" problem of forwarding.

Well, IMAP rather than POP3. I don’t think there’s a single legitimate reason to use POP3 any more (or has been for at least a decade). The fetch approach has some significant caveats. Firstly, it introduces something like 5–10 minutes of latency before you receive messages compared with forwarding, so it’s not suitable for every purpose. If you’re accessing via the webmail, forcing a refresh may trigger remote fetch…

> and on investigation, it told me that it refused to fetch from a mailbox containing more than 50,000 messages.

Ironically, you would not have this problem with POP3.

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#94

Post by thfuran »

fdewnijfwg wrote: post #88
randunel wrote: post #45

Phone number porting is a thing due to regulation. I'm looking forward to having email address porting legislation, one day. For full porting, there's a long road ahead, starting with regulating domain names, which email addresses depend on. However, as long as the domain name _de facto_ remains in the possession of the original provider, this is technically possible, already. Email address porting might even be poss…

How would you even solve porting without breaking legacy systems? You can point the MX records to another provider's server (or your own), but porting single email addresses won't really work.

I assume a similar issue existed for telephone numbers. Was it wrong to require that they be portable?

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#95

Post by maratc »

londons_explore wrote: post #55
moreira wrote: post #51

> lost access to paid services that I had set up with social login I signed up to Quora with my Facebook account, back in the day. Deleted Facebook in 2013 and lost access to my Quora account, with no possible way to recover it. I haven't used a social login since. In my case, it was fairly harmless, but it made me realise how dangerous social login is. Every time there's a signup, I look for "signup with email". It'…

There really needs to be a zero cost custom-domain email hosting solution. I'd love to have webmail on my own domain, hosted by someone else, and with ads on the side. Those ads should generate ~$20 per user per year (after all, they can be targeted based on emails I'm sending and receiving, and I'll be looking at them many minutes every day - the perfect combination for high revenue ads). With $20/user/year, there s…

I use mail forwarders on my custom domain so anything sent to me@mydomain.co is simply forwarded to myregular@gmail.com.

Except the domain renewal fees, it's free.

If Gmail blocks me, I can readdress the forwarding to hotmail or usa.net or whatever.

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#97

Post by foxfluff »

Grustaf wrote: post #53
pjc50 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even something as crucial as a banking service Interestingly the problem of people excluded from the banking system has been addressed by statutory regulation in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/basic-bank-account... ; see also discussion at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldfi... which covers the question of people with inadequate ID. Getting your email account wrongly bann…

Good to hear that you have protections around this in the UK. I know that in Sweden several political, and even ideological organisations have had their accounts frozen because of things they said or held true. Entirely legal things I should add.

Notice the difference between organizations and private individuals (which the quoted UK regulations seems to protect). I don't know if it's EU wide but Finland also requires banks to provide service to private individuals.

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#99

Post by stephc_int13 »

thfuran wrote: post #85
stephc_int13 wrote: post #57

Gmail itself is a scam. It took me a while to realize how fucked up this "free service" was. We've collectively ben pwned by Google, big time.

It might be a bad deal, but it's not a scam. The say they'll give you webmail and they give you webmail.

It might be at the individual level, but the scale completely changes the nature of the deal, in my opinion.

Re: Ask HN: Should we own the free stuff we pay for?

#100

Post by magusd »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #18

Apologies for going meta here: Could I urge that posters follow the site convention of prefixing the title with with Ask HN, Tell HN, etc. for posts that don't link to an external source? There are currently two such posts in the top 30. HN is primarily for discussing external articles, and I'd suggest that this post should have been submitted as such.

my bad :(
Post reply on HN