[crazybonkersai]

It’s striking that while many states push citizens toward digital-only public services, almost none provide a state-run email service. Instead, official communication is effectively outsourced to foreign, commercial platforms with uneven privacy records (e.g. Gmail). If governments are serious about digital sovereignty and data protection, they should operate their own email infrastructure and issue each citizen an official address, much like a social security number. Whether people actually use it or prefer a private alternative should remain a personal choice—but the state shouldn’t depend on third-party platforms as its default communication layer.

[spicyjpeg]

It is actually much worse than that. Much like banking, the push for digital government services in many countries has ended up more or less requiring every citizen to own an up-to-date, non-jailbroken iOS or Android device. If you blocked your phone from accessing Apple or Google servers (or if it's 6 years old, a dumb phone or runs GrapheneOS), the support staff will just tell you to walk to your closest Best Buy equivalent and grab the cheapest Android device you can find; in the name of "security" there often is no fallback option, and when there is one it's SMS 2FA which is (understandably) rate limited to three uses per year.

If your phone gets stolen, meanwhile, you may find yourself unable to log into the police's portal for reporting it.

[harrisoned]

This is something that worries me. I know that the laws/constitution that guarantees the rights of somebody may vary from country to country (and may not even be enforced by the letter), but lets say: All commercial companies will have a ToS, data sharing agreements, etc. You, as a user, i assume is not obligated to agree to that ToS at the expense of not using the service. If a government body requires you to use their service to access basic services (and offers no 'offline' alternative) required by law, are they, by proxy, coercing you to accept a commercial ToS? I would very much like to hear a lawyer opinion on this.

I know some government may do this with intent, but i imagine many governments simply never thought about it, or no citizen ever didn't accepted a "popular smartphone OS provider's ToS" and challenged that government requirement. I know some make offline alternatives very inconvenient, but that still technically legal.

[_djo_]

The Dutch government has one approach to the email service issue, by having a website and app, Berichtenbox, where you can receive official communications. They're regularly extending it to include municipalities as well.

However it's one-way only at the moment, there's no way to use it for two-way communication.

[Aeolun]

It also requires either a phone or computer that’s increasingly owned by private corporations. The only OS that doesn’t restrict what I can do with it is Linux.

[halJordan]

The post was only state run because it was necessary. The Romans and the Sassanians for instance did not provide mail service to their subjects. I think you're big picture is still too small. The world existed fine on private mail carriers, it will in the future to.

[anal_reactor]

> state-run email service

I think that companies providing certain basic services like email or messaging should eventually become branches of the government. This is the only way to provide these services with subsidies without enshittification.