On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200 <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200 > > <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > [...] > > > > > less secure apps" option, and then configure POP3 / SMTP normally. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > Google's evil comes through the backdoor, without making any noise, > > > like Wormtongue. > > > > Explain, please? > > Allow me to be short, since off-topic for this thread and most probably > off-topic for the list. > > In the specific case above, first of all, definitional power ("we get > to say what is secure").
I think terming Google's decision to call software that doesn't implement OAuth "less secure" "evil" is hyperbole that doesn't help our broader cause of opposing its breaking of standards, imposing various sorts of lock-in, invasions of privacy, etc. > In general, > > - dominance on the server (adwords, visibility in search engines...) > and on the client (Chrome/Chromium, Android) side. I don't consider dominance gained largely through superior technology and legitimate means "evil". Undesirable, yes. > - mindshare: developers get used to do things "the Google way" > > - mindshare (II): users perceive an app as broken if it works > differently > > - subtle behavioural knowledge about almost anyone on or near > the 'net > > (I'm sure you can think of two or three more). > > IMO they're far too big. Agreed, but again, I don't think that makes them "evil". Celejar