This is a great analogy. Why do more work when you can get the same result with less effort?
A. Ideology. If the agent wants a different global equilibrium, they might decide that them choosing differently, (1) calms their conscience and/or (2) actually make a material different in the choices of others.
Yes, it is a similar result, but not the same. You give up a lot of control even using a smaller email service provider -- not the least of which is direct control of your own email data. Obviously, since it is email, there is nothing you can do about what others do with emails once they are received on their end, but it is still nice to have direct control of your side.
The counterpoint, however, remains valid. There is some work involved in maintaining your own mail server. If you use a provider, you don't have to deal with any of that -- it's always about tradeoffs. As the article says, however, maintaining your own mail server isn't as hard as a lot of people make it out to be. It takes a little of your time, but once you know the few things you need to do, I find it to not be a big deal at all.
But I'd probably go with goats instead.
I don't think maintaining your own email server can be very fulfilling, but hobbies are a matter of taste.
How's that?
Raw milk from grass fed animals has a very different, much richer taste.
For one you can control what you feed your animals. The taste and quality of milk varies greatly depending on what they eat. You can feed them high quality grass, although in winter some cereals are fine. Anybody that drinks raw milk knows that the taste of what they eat really is reflected in the milk. E.g. if you let them graze on a field with flowers, it will have a flowery taste.
Leave raw milk on the table to turn sour and you get yogurt. It's quite good too. And you can't do that with the pasteurized milk from the store, it doesn't matter if it's whole or not, doesn't work.
Goes without saying that with high quality raw milk it's quite easy to make cheese too, which again, you can't with the milk your can find at the store.
As for why it's more healthy, the pasteurization process reduces the nutritional quality of milk. There are also weak indications that people with a lactose intolerance can tolerate raw milk better than they can tolerate pasteurized milk. It might be that it contains some lactase. Although this claim you should take with a grain of salt.
And in the US at least you can argue that the pasteurized milk you find in stores is ultra-processed. Read the following article:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-aug-02-fo-62752...
Note that I'm not saying that you can't find a good source of raw milk from a farm with free range, grass fed animals and great quality control. But it's harder to do so and if you're living in the city, depending on the city, next to impossible.
I do encourage you to try find such a source. The difference in taste is well worth it.
And if you grow it yourself, it's much like anything else. For example tomatoes no longer taste well due to being picked too early. Grow your own tomatoes in season and the difference is night and day.
I'd also note that "pasteurization" can mean different things in different countries. In Europe it's usually more extreme than in the U.S., as the milk is heated ~60 °C higher for a shorter period.
[1]: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/drinking-raw-milk#claim...
I'm in Europe.
> the pasteurization process reduces the nutritional quality of milk
It doesn't reduce the nutritional quality substantially though does it?
Europe Food Safety Authority advises to not drink raw unpasteurised milk due to potential health risks (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3940.htm) echoing what many national countries have advised "at a minimum, boil the milk before drinking it to kill potentially harmful bacteria"
Any perceived nutritional gain is marginal and is far outweighed by risk of illness.
If you wake up one day and the only email you can use is the one you can get from a major provider, you have just become a consumer.