Your inability to understand that is just not relevant.
Your inability to understand that is just not relevant.
Whether the author continues to use Google services is utterly and completely irrelevant. The point of contention here is the sleazy way Google re-activates a service for them after they have explicitly disabled it. If your answer to this dilemma is to stop using Google services altogether, then I'm sorry but you just lost all credibility and will not be taken seriously.
Only if you think blaming the victim is reasonable.
Look, everyone knows that alternatives to Google exist. The problem here is that Google has pulled a massive bait and switch on its entire userbase. They started as a company that put its users first, and over time turned into one that tries to extract as much money from users as possible. And while it is possible to switch to other services, for a lot of people and companies this involves a significant time investment as well as an upheaval of processes and resources.
Heck, as a single individual, my Gmail address is listed in at least 25 different locations. Remembering what those are and then changing them alone would take me hours. And then there's static documents with my email address on them - resumes, cover letters, business letters, business cards, and more. Finally, there is the question of whether my new email provider offers integrated solutions for instant messaging, content sharing and collaboration, calendar, and more.
Basically, Google is a monopoly -- not in the sense of market-share but rather in terms of the completeness of their offering, and they are abusing the shit out of this. That's what's making people angry, and they have every right to be angry.
Yes.