Back

@HerraBRE @chuck Good callout on the contradictory statements those people made. 100% agree this is fucked up but...Look I'm going to be honest, you will not get the majority of the population to self-host. There are a ton of concerns regarding people with low income or people with no computer education. Hell, you won't even get good penetration outside of us computer geeks until this process is one-click install.

I support these efforts. But we have to compromise on the remote hosting thing because people with lower incomes are never going to be able to afford such a luxury. GMail and other "gratis" services are a tax on the poor. If the problem is hosting on a remote computer, the solution to that isn't to tacitly imply the poor buy something (a local computer for hosting). The solution to expensive HTTPS certs was Let's Encrypt! Let's think about complete penetration if we're serious about privacy, rather than remaining pure. This will require compromise on some principles of privacy, namely we will need solutions based in trust and humanity rather than a tech solution.

@HerraBRE @chuck That's absolutely fair! And mobile device software are indeed often one-click setups. We could potentially get people acclimated to the idea of using their phones or tablets as passive MX servers and other oft-remote services. That's what I mean by a humanity-based solution: changing hearts and minds by using cultural normalization (of self-hosting MX, etc) and building that trust in these services. I think it's even better nowadays since most phones are encrypted, so people may even begin to trust their own devices more than remote ones if we appeal to them in that fashion. We have the tech, let's get those people!