Actually I disagree on the latest part. I actually questioned, why google and Facebook had to go kiss the ring and pay some bucks to Trump, and didn’t have to do that before? This for me is a sign of a disalignment between big tech and the administration.

That said, it’s very much possible (I would say likely) trump won’t do shit and he just happens to have the “correct” position on this particular issue because it can be used to attack the Californian elite (I.e. dem elite). But it’s a matter of fact that it’s auspicable he will follow up with action on his words on this, even if for the wrong reasons.

It’s not even a matter of “thinking” that, it’s basically what he said. All his “siding” is in the context of antitrust and breaking tech monopolies. I don’t think trump will do much in this space, but dems didn’t do much either. If Trump will (the election is over anyway, so we are not discussing of choosing trump for this) it’s good, even if it comes from the Trump administration.

I don’t know any guide, but deliverability is the biggest concern and it may also not be fully under control. Sometimes IP blocks get blacklisted or deranked and your emails end in spam, and you might not even know that.

1,2 and 3 are completely irrelevant. 1 is completely normal, 2 missed the point that the wallet (which I don’t use, I never owned crypto) has nothing to do with privacy and 4 is an optional marketing strategy to incentivise migration from google. Nothing is wrong with any of this.