Part of the problem is that the wrong people are complaining.
Using Google as an example, the author has no right to push anything to a gmail inbox. Google has no contract with the author to accept mail from him.
What Google is doing, it's failing its customers, the people who signed on gmail to have an address where other people could send data to.
And now those people are not receiving everything they could, but it's only up to them to decide whether this is actually a problem and whether it's serious enough to contact gmail support.
I do understand the point and the spirit of the author, but he is actually conflating the freedom of speech with the right to be listened to.
Using Google as an example, the author has no right to push anything to a gmail inbox. Google has no contract with the author to accept mail from him.
What Google is doing, it's failing its customers, the people who signed on gmail to have an address where other people could send data to.
And now those people are not receiving everything they could, but it's only up to them to decide whether this is actually a problem and whether it's serious enough to contact gmail support.
I do understand the point and the spirit of the author, but he is actually conflating the freedom of speech with the right to be listened to.