many times over the past thirty years have i heard that: “email is dead” there will soon be no more email.
i have come to accept that email fits the nature of human people.
you can send an email and the person you are writing to, or communicating with, can read your communication at any time. the recipient has many choices in responding. the recipient can say: ” i did not receive your email” or take a day or a week or even longer, to reply. of course the recipient may also choose not to reply at all.
many new internet techies, at some point in time, think: “I can improve this email protocol” it can be better, it can issue receive receipts, it can have a flashy wizzy majiggy widget that spins…
email does as people are. which is why email is not dead and for as long as thee are people, there will be email.
people are not perfect. people are not machines. even though people strive to be better, strive to improve, strive to build and grow, people are still not machines.
this is also the basic error that AI makes at its inception, it assumes that AI will “be better than people” it will not. if or when the machines take over – there will eventually be just one machine, this much is fairly obvious. but, it is the diversity of human people, the imperfections, the ability to “hope” the ability to “believe” the ability to be “fuzzy” about fake news, about facts about perspective and ignorance are all things that allow and facilitate growth.
Note this: Growth is not linear. For many types of growth, growth is a circular process of change. the circles themselves become increasingly larger or smaller.
Gmail (owned by the no longer technologically disruptive Google) is adding many ‘improvements’ to their email systems. for example: geographic locations and other ‘intrusive’ elements. it is interesting to see whether the monopoly is able to “sell” this to their users. i guess the average gmail user is fairly ignorant and could probably be sold on anything. as usual, the ‘disruption’ these days in tech is all about pushing the legislative boundaries, where is the multinational internet company damaging to society? where is the balance? it is not about being disruptive and introducing new tech. it is not about burning like a fire to clear the path for new green growth. it is about: “with how much can we get away with”
we have seen this with the US elections and the accusations that the “Russians” rigged the American election (which Russia denies doing). global multinationals frequently push the boundaries of what is socially acceptable and therefore “not evil” – yet, evil they are as evil is as evil does.
it is kak to have geo tracking in your email. it is kak to have your email read and inspected for “words” new ‘features’ are kak. be disruptive and improve where there is a demand or need for it and do not experiment with your products. your products must earn you money and revenue and should not also be subject to your social experiments.