Is there a possibility to remove Google, Facebook and other account providers from the gnome online accounts setting I am not aware of?
I could not find anything regarding this - and therefore opened an issue on their gitlab repository:

The providers can be disabled with the help of dconf:

With that, you can enable/disable providers from showing up in the settings list.

Show thread

If you want to just have the IMAP provider enabled, the content of `00-goa` needs to look like this:


Show thread

@puresick In general, they don't do anything except authenticating your machine so that it can access Google services.

@ebassi with all due respect, @puresick didn't ask that... and this feature is doing something, perhaps without realizing it; it is advertising for and legitimizing these "service providers".

@ITwrx @puresick That's a very näive way of looking at it; those services exist, and people are already using them, with or without GNOME. Thanks to GNOME, though, people can access them through free and open source software.

Sure, it would be great if infrastructure was free an open too; GNOME is not going to prevent that from happening, but GNOME is also not going to provide that kind of infrastructure because it's way beyond what we can offer.

@ebassi @puresick once again, with all due respect, noone said anything about Gnome needing to replace all the centralized/closed services. Not trying to speak for @puresick , but we're(?) just questioning the exact way this feature is made available to the user. I don't want this stuff being shoved in my/"my users'" faces just because other people may want to use these "providers". The DE should set a good example/neutral/safe environment, even when enabling the *opt-in* to controversial features/providers.

@ITwrx @ebassi Yes I would assume that they will not do anything if not configured, but personally, I want to remove them completly, because I will never use them out of privacy reasons.

In the issue above, the Developer pointed me at the possibilities of:

1. disabling them on compile time
2. configuring gnome user permissions to hide these for others

Which is awesome, but both options are still not end user friendly.

@puresick @ITwrx "user friendly" is a spectrum, not a static condition. The appropriate "friendliness" level is to allow people to see them, and decide to never use them. Having a toggle to remove them—and then have a way to bring them back—would be counterproductive and, typically, *less* user friendly, because it would add new levels of indirection, new settings, new UI.

I understand you don't want to use them. Don't try to dress up your personal choice with "user friendliness".

@puresick @ITwrx This is also the last thing I'm going to say on this topic; I'm not going to convince you, and I'm not interested in discussing hypotethicals of privacy from first principles.

@ebassi @ITwrx Oh okay. Would have been great to have a deeper and more detailled discussion about that.

@ebassi @ITwrx Yeah you are right, in that toot I set "user friendly" in conjunction with my personal preference - sorry about that.

Nevertheless, I do not agree with your assumption that this would be counterproductive- that depends on the design and implementation of such a feature. Sure, removing complexity can help the general user experience of software (and often does!), but so does enabling the user having more control over the software he/she uses.

@puresick I have same idea as yours but I cannot phrase it the language you can like that. Thanks for representing me (and I believe, many other people). Thanks.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
IMD Social

IMD Social ist eine Mastodon Instanz von und für IMD Studierende, Alumni und Vereinsmitglieder des Interactive Media Design Förderverein e.V. Impressum