Gmail registration now requires scanning a QR code and sending a text message

Post by donkyrf » Mon, May 11, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

idle_zealot wrote: post #280

motbus3 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah! I can't believe people know basics about cartels, trusts and dumping.

It does feel like a lot of very intelligent people here basically start at a first principles belief in property rights, and discover or dispute all of the rights and protections put in place over centuries to patch up the issues that occur when that philosophy meets reality. It reflects poorly on our education systems that these apparently weren't covered or were unconvincing when presented. Or maybe it's just a ref…

Post by jen20 » Mon, May 11, 2026, 7:54 PM UTC

ninalanyon wrote: post #279

quaintdev wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's expensive, complicated and time-consuming to maintain - and both a source of and recipient of endless waves of spam and scams. It's an endless pile of data to hold onto, FOREVER, as well. They should let others do email. The more email service providers we have the better it is for everyone

No one is stopping anyone offering an email service, surely every IS does that?

Post by WalterBright » Mon, May 11, 2026, 7:56 PM UTC

motbus3 wrote: post #273

bachmeier wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and certainly aren’t obligated to provide it for free And I'll stop you here. It's less than obvious that there's no obligation. If you provide a critical service that folks rely on at a price less than your cost, you drive out competition, and it's a critical part of your own business model, dropping the service without warning is IMO on the border of what Google should be allowed to do.

Yeah! I can't believe people know basics about cartels, trusts and dumping.

Post by redsocksfan45 » Mon, May 11, 2026, 7:59 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #172

xp84 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an underrated distinction. Sadly, the line is so much more blurred now than even when I was a kid in the 90s. There are so many businesses now which exist mainly to cheat you, operating at the very edge of what’s technically legal, and relying on their customers not really understanding the full terms of the deals they’re agreeing to. It’s sickening.

Can you post an example? Thank you.

Post by redserk » Mon, May 11, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC

bachmeier wrote: post #266

redserk wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They've essentially gotten roped into maintaining a huge chunk of internet infrastructure, for free. I’ll stop you here. Google offered it for free and, at the time, offered such an high amount of mail storage for free it sounded insane. At the time, my ISP gave me a 25MB or 50MB inbox and that was considered pretty decent, when Google was trying to get people in with 1-2GB. They absolutely have a right to take ant…

> and certainly aren’t obligated to provide it for free And I'll stop you here. It's less than obvious that there's no obligation. If you provide a critical service that folks rely on at a price less than your cost, you drive out competition, and it's a critical part of your own business model, dropping the service without warning is IMO on the border of what Google should be allowed to do.