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

Proton spam and the AI consent problem

dbushell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 446 posts

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#231

Post by davidee »

I've been using proton for a year after migrating from Rackspace and I'm done. Not because of this article, but I might as well pile on:

1. I use a custom domain.

Turns out that there are two competing features, not-at-all documented. If you use a catch-all, like I do, AND use specific addresses for sending, the two are incompatible to some degree. Which is bonkers.

Example: with a catchall I can create any address I want (and I do). Some store wants an email for a big discount, cool, here's a throwaway. Buying something online, here's a throwaway.

Now sometimes, I need to reply using that throwaway. Turns out in Proton, this triggers a gotcha. As soon as I add the throwaway email to my list of email addresses for sending, I enter a world with a limit of 10 max.

That's fine, I can disable them right?

Nope, it turns out if I disable them in order to add aothers, Proton blocks those addresses *even though I have a catch-all*. WHAT?? Worse, if I try to delete the addresses, Proton will also delete the associated messages in my Inbox/folders. Excuse me?

2. What really pushed me away: Search.

Whatever proton is using under the hood is easily the worst search experience I've ever had from a mail product, and I use Thunderbird on my work machine.

Notable: Proton Bridge. I get why, but it's just terrible.

So many rough edges. Just not worth it.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#232

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

bayindirh wrote: post #47
littlecranky67 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. We must change laws that the above field is not considered as given consent. And while we are at it, we must change "silence is agreement" to "silence is disagreement". This applies to change of ToS, price increases etc. That means if I don't click a link with a button "I agree", the ToS change is not accepted - that means they have to cancel/delete my account.

Didn't FCC remove "1-click unsubscribe" requirement since it can "provide more choice and lower prices to all users across the board" (since the companies can rip off more users and create pseudo-lower prices)? EU has its GPDR and it has some teeth, but US is currently hopeless on that front, for now, from my vantage point. I'd love to be stand corrected though.

The FTC established a "click-to-cancel" rule, but (as with just so many regulations in the US) it was blocked by an appeals court. Federal law says there's a hoop they have to jump through for rules with an impact of more than $100 million, and they didn't jump through the hoop because they didn't think the impact was that high.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#233

Post by thejoeflow »

davidee wrote: post #231

I've been using proton for a year after migrating from Rackspace and I'm done. Not because of this article, but I might as well pile on: 1. I use a custom domain. Turns out that there are two competing features, not-at-all documented. If you use a catch-all, like I do, AND use specific addresses for sending, the two are incompatible to some degree. Which is bonkers. Example: with a catchall I can create any address I…

Isn't the search bad because they can't search email contents? As long as the term is somewhere in the metadata (title, sender email, sender name) it seems to work ok.

I agree though that the user experience isn't great because of this limitation. You kind of have to remember what the title of the email was for what you're looking for. Searching for "flight ticket" results in mixed success

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#234

Post by bl4ckneon »

davidee wrote: post #231

I've been using proton for a year after migrating from Rackspace and I'm done. Not because of this article, but I might as well pile on: 1. I use a custom domain. Turns out that there are two competing features, not-at-all documented. If you use a catch-all, like I do, AND use specific addresses for sending, the two are incompatible to some degree. Which is bonkers. Example: with a catchall I can create any address I…

You also get simplelogin for free, give that a try. Will probably fix your first issue

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#235

Post by pixl97 »

amarcheschi wrote: post #220
pixl97 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>then I'm going to escalate to the national authority if they still refuse to act. You are actually doing this wrong... Report to the national authority first... Then report to Google. Fuck them, it is not in your interest to report to them first, make them react for their bullshit. Over here in the states this is how I ended up dealing with telecom in the ISP industry. "Hello, I have put in an FTC/FCC complaint on $…

You might have a stronger case with the national authority if you first do the full "trail" of reporting, appealing, and eventually escalating. But yes, I feel that there's something wrong in having a stronger case if you first do it "gently" when they wouldn't bother if it were the other way

>You might have a stronger case with the national authority

At least on the ISP side, we started doing it this way after the telcos would yank our chains for weeks or months first, when we had issues that needed to get solved quickly. More so I started working with our competitor ISPs because it was very common we'd all the have the same issues. More than one complaint of the same type in the same area to these agencies tends to get noticed and followed up quickly. The follow through process on it starts to get expensive for the telcos too.

My next recommendation on this political ad bullshit is don't go at it alone. Find as many like minded people to dig up and complain on these ads as you can. Flood the regulators with violations that are occurring. When you think of it in reverse, these companies breaking the law will have no issues with pooling resources and going after you.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#236

Post by browningstreet »

chrisjj wrote: post #125
SCdF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree: in as much as I have noticed this *far* more with AI than any other advancement / fad (depending on your opinion) than anything else before. This also tracks with every app and website injecting AI into every one of your interactions, with no way to disable it. I think the article's point about non-consent is a very apt one, and expresses why I dislike this trend so much. I left Google Workspace, as a pay…

> I left Google Workspace, as a paying customer for years, because they injected gemini into gmail I wonder if this varies by territory. In UK, none of the Gmail accounts I use has received this pollution > I am moving all of the software that I pay for to competitors who either do not integrate AI, or allow me to disable it if I wish. The latter sounds safer. The former may add "AI" tomorrow.

Gmail Google Workspaces

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#237

Post by toby- »

brauhaus wrote: post #155
ozlikethewizard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where you live, but inside the EU / UK this is rarely a problem because the companies do get fined. If youre having problems like this report them to your relevant authority. But as another commentor noted, AI bubble makes paying spam fines more worthwhile than bubble popping.

Only if the company is headquartered in EU/UK, right? Proton, for example, is headquartered in Switzerland. Even if it wanted, there would be no legal entity in EU to be fined.

My understanding is that a company's location is largely irrelevant; a company becomes subject to the GDPR when they handle EU citizens' data (or UK GDPR when it's UK citizens), and the EU/UK will still try to fine companies that aren't resident in the EU/UK - enforceability is a different question, although non-payment of fines opens the door to other remedies e.g. blocking access, seizing assets, etc.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#238

Post by Forgeties79 »

arrozconcosas wrote: post #194
everyday7732 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, it's the same attitude that they used to create the AI in the first place by using content which they don't own, without permission. Regardless of how useful it may be, the companies creating it and including it have demonstrated time and again that they do not care about consent.

How can you get a machine to have values? Humans have values because of social dynamics and education (or lack of exposure to other types of education). Computers do not have social dynamics, and it is much harder to control what they are being educated on if the answer is "everything".

That sounds like the valued-at-billions-and-drowning-in-funding company’s problem. The issue is they just go “there are no consequences for solving this, so we simply won’t.”

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#239

Post by lawtalkinghuman »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #229
philipwhiuk wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really AI itself though, it's just whatever the current hype cycle is - it was crypto and cloud before this.

Cloud is probably the better comparison, since crypto never had the sort of mainstream management buy-in that the other two got. Microsoft's handling of OneDrive in particular foreshadows how AI is being pushed out.

The difference is OneDrive is moderately useful.
Post reply on HN