|
|
|
|
|
by Const-me
1977 days ago
|
|
> How are they different than algorithmic ordering that we agree to in the TOS? People [would be] consuming the spam content being filtered agree with the filtering and are generally happy with it. Failing that, when people are unhappy with their spam filter they can adjust or disable it. As a last resort, they can migrate to another e-mail provider, there's no monopoly on e-mail. Moreover, e-mail is delivered almost equally between different providers. Many people watching youtube or reading facebook are unhappy with their content policies. There's no way to control their filters or opt out of them. There's de-facto monopoly on these markets: the network effect is too strong, and antimonopoly laws don't seem to apply to their acquisitions of competitors. |
|
I definitely appreciate you taking the rime to respond. I’m just not sure that I agree that a network effect is monopolistic. It feels more akin to losing a feature by switching off gmail.
Definitely valid points about turning off the filter, although on gmail, I believe that is only for your personal filters. Google still filters huge amounts of malicious stuff before it gets to the spam folder, by silently dropping it.