What I mean is if you depend on paid services for things like email or your password manager, you have to be able to guarantee that you will always be able to pay for it or else you will be locked out of that critical service to some extent. For example if you were to sign up for Tutanota and have one email for personal use, another for healthcare, and another for banking, and then at some point you are either in a tough financial spot or your payment method gets lost or stolen, you might lose your email for critical services.
Simple login doesn't have this issue because they promise that even if you stop paying you get to keep the aliases you've made. But most services don't operate like that.
I know the default answer would be "what are the odds you won't be able to afford $10 a month". For context I am poor and have always been poor, so it's very easy for me to understand that even if I become successful there will always be the possibility that I might lose everything, and the whole point of security is preparing for when bad things happen, even if they don't.
I'm curious if anyone else shares this opinion, because I haven't heard anyone else in the privacy space talk about it. Probably because most prominent people aren't dirt poor and don't factor that into their threat model.
You have to trust society at some point.
How do you know you'll be able to pay for your power bill, or replace a broken hard drive in your home server
I don't think people really get how important email is. If im homeless I can still go to a library and correspond by email which is the cornerstone of all my other logins. Its a reason I think governements should supply a guaranteed email for all citizens. I get a lot of blowback about it but its like you don't have to use it as your main email.
Yeah Americans would definitely trust government email.