[xeyownt]

You are missing the point.

The point is that they don't provide the level of services required by their position, which is dominant.

When you have a legitimate problem with Google, they don't reply to you. The news here is again an example of that. The only thing you can do is abide by their rules, which often requires you to subscribe to their services or be at their mercy.

[protocolture]

Thats the point? The point seems to dance around and shift every time I address it.

I have had this specific issue with an absolute laundry list of email providers and senders, including Google. Googles probably not even in the top ten worst offenders. Getting Sony to remove an ip from its PSN email blacklist was much more difficult.

So they are a monopoly in the sense that they aren't a monopoly, and just have massive corporate power, and that massive corporate power translates into them acting like every other email provider with a spam blacklist and that's uniquely bad somehow? Is that a good description?

Or will the point now shapeshift into something else?

[mindslight]

Are you sure it's the point itself shapeshifting and not your responses to it?

> have massive corporate power, and that massive corporate power translates into them acting like every other [massive corporate] email provider with a spam blacklist

If that's how you want to sum it up, sure. Unaccountable corporate power is bad. That people instinctively reach for the "M-word" in response to this dynamic doesn't invalidate their criticisms. And no, I don't find your "if corpos didn't do this on their own then the government would force it" argument compelling. The problem isn't spam filtering (etc), but rather the details of how they're implemented.

[protocolture]

Then forge the argument you think I need to be assuming exists?