The problem is…you allowed it. Could have just read and avoided the problem altogether. Again, I’m not thrilled with it, which is exactly why I chose to turn it off. Malware doesn’t typically allow you to opt-out.
And let me know when K9 supports Exchange. Unfortunately, some of us still need to use protocols outside of IMAP and POP.
Stop user shaming. You’re attacking an end user instead of attacking the dark pattern. The proper callout is “damn that sucks Gmail shouldn’t be serving ads that look like email btw did you know you can stop using categories to stop getting ads?” When you do things like “you should have known better” you’re completing ignoring the whole “Gmail shouldn’t be serving ads as emails” part.
Look at the bigger picture, the default is what everyone including the elderly, kids, anyone not tech savvy, or anyone that doesn’t want to search for the “don’t serve me malware” setting for their friggin email.
The company is still liable if they officially promote dangerous stuff, even if the user could technically avoid it. Take the Panera Charged Lemonade scandal for example. The user shouldn’t be forced to tiptoe around the email client itself.
I mean…the company is an ad company. Didn’t think I had to explain to users how they make their money, but apparently everyone needs a “coffee is hot” warning on everything.
This isn’t “coffee is hot” though. For naive internet users, this is more equivalent to “coffee will give you small pox”. You really don’t need to defend Google here.
This isn’t about having ads (though that still sucks) this is about again, company endorsed malware.
If they’re gonna shove ads in email, they need to have the quality control to not have misleading and harmful ads placed in there. Again, think of this as the charged lemonade situation, just because the user can technically avoid the risk, doesn’t mean they’re exempt from reducing the danger they put their users in.
The problem here is they’re serving literal malware in their client, and the categorized view is the default, which the average person will use.
I’ve switched to K9 mail for that account, doesn’t matter what the Gmail client does anymore.
The problem is…you allowed it. Could have just read and avoided the problem altogether. Again, I’m not thrilled with it, which is exactly why I chose to turn it off. Malware doesn’t typically allow you to opt-out.
And let me know when K9 supports Exchange. Unfortunately, some of us still need to use protocols outside of IMAP and POP.
Stop user shaming. You’re attacking an end user instead of attacking the dark pattern. The proper callout is “damn that sucks Gmail shouldn’t be serving ads that look like email btw did you know you can stop using categories to stop getting ads?” When you do things like “you should have known better” you’re completing ignoring the whole “Gmail shouldn’t be serving ads as emails” part.
Removed by mod
I think you very ably demonstrated my point. Thanks!
Look at the bigger picture, the default is what everyone including the elderly, kids, anyone not tech savvy, or anyone that doesn’t want to search for the “don’t serve me malware” setting for their friggin email.
The company is still liable if they officially promote dangerous stuff, even if the user could technically avoid it. Take the Panera Charged Lemonade scandal for example. The user shouldn’t be forced to tiptoe around the email client itself.
I mean…the company is an ad company. Didn’t think I had to explain to users how they make their money, but apparently everyone needs a “coffee is hot” warning on everything.
This isn’t “coffee is hot” though. For naive internet users, this is more equivalent to “coffee will give you small pox”. You really don’t need to defend Google here.
Ads are one thing, malware through ads is another. Don’t be pedantic, you know what he’s trying to say.
This isn’t about having ads (though that still sucks) this is about again, company endorsed malware.
If they’re gonna shove ads in email, they need to have the quality control to not have misleading and harmful ads placed in there. Again, think of this as the charged lemonade situation, just because the user can technically avoid the risk, doesn’t mean they’re exempt from reducing the danger they put their users in.
You’d think an ad company would have proper vetting processes so as to not serve literal malware to their users.