The right to be analog is a critical intrinsic enabler to the power to boycott.
Suppose you boycott Microsoft and Google. If you need to reach a gov office who uses MS or Google for email, then you are writing a snail mail letter. Denmark has eliminated the national postal service. The loss of an important analog option forces Danes to use the digital mechanism. No one in Denmark can say: “hold on, I am boycotting Microsoft, so I cannot be obligated to correspond with your office”.
No country gives its people either rights. That is, there is no country that gives you a right to boycott or the right be analog. In principle, we could loosely claim to derive those rights through the human rights to autonomy, dignity, and self-determination. But that won’t hold up in court, as human rights are generally disregarded in court. Abstract human rights like that are really a long-shot as well. Even if a court were to concede to human rights, you’ve already lost if you have to go to court because in Europe you cannot generally recover all damages even if the judge takes your side.
I believe a window of opportunity is passing us by. If we do not establish a right to be analog hard and fast, it will be too late once mechanisms supporting our analog refuge are gone.
Europe is quietly removing the cash option. Europeans are boiling frogs. They don’t see that they have already lost the option to be free from banks. Forced banking is already in force. This enables banks to gradually force you onto their enshitified digital platforms.
What I find most disturbing is how a vast majority are blind to this.
You are mixing things up. Using google or M$ for government email services is not against going analog, the problem is that we are paying ubercompanies to handle our data, even important ones. If government instead relied on open source, self hosted services, there wouldn't be much of a problem for using emails only.
As for not being able to use cash as much, you are right, that's a problem if one wished to go "analog".
You seem confused. If I need to send correspondence to gov agency X, and gov agency X chooses an email supplier who I boycott, how do you think I execute my boycott? I send snail-mail. Of course. The analog mechanism is an essential refuge that enables a boycott to be possible.
That attempts to circumvents the problem without solving it. Of course, it would be nice if everyone would use services that I do not boycott. But how do you scale that? How can you possibly ensure that all services are not boycotted by all people? To really have boycott rights, you need to be in control of your boycotts. You cannot have someone else selecting who you boycott; it defeats the purpose. It’s also an impossible ask. If every tiny gov office maintains an email server, their costs become unsurmountable.
You seem to think there is a singular government. Every federal government has hundreds if not thousands of small regional governments. And the federal gov is divided into tens if not hundreds of competency-specific governments. That’s a lot of email servers.
Are you proposing that the federal gov maintain email for all government agencies in a country? If yes, then what if they make a bad decision, like blocking dynamic IP addresses from sending msgs? Then I am back to boycotting the service, which would be very crippling if that same service is used across all agencies.