I have personally regressed a bit due to life circumstances, using a lot more bareback Chromium these days. But a lack of ability to chose a better alternative doesn't invalidate the judgment that there are indeed better options.
If you can't even acknowledge that a large portion of the population exists, there is going to be hell to pay when your proposed solutions de facto step all over them.
I mean, you might as well choose any arbitrary thread about a programming language and complain that the only implementation(s) require a computer, which requires non-universally-possessed resources to obtain/upkeep, and furthermore not everybody has time to program!
Also, asserting that "99 percent" are straight up unable to choose a new email provider is preposterous.
It promotes an echo chamber and is de facto exclusionary.
Minorities frequently complain that most people "bet" you will be one of the majority. If 90 percent of the time, X is true, they assume X is true in all cases rather than hedging their bet that maybe this is that 10 percent case where a woman is the boss or a person of color is the boss or the person you are speaking to is gay or whatever. It helps create an atmosphere hostile to minorities and other disempowered people.
If there's a correlation between using surveillance-based email and income, it's likely positive - the well paid people are the most wed to the overarching power structure that surveillance supports, and the technically inclined ones are most likely to be directly working for the surveillance companies!
Yes, the surveillance industry takes advantage of disadvantaged people in the same manner that Bank of America does. That's not the topic of discussion or the focus of the OP.
"Privilege" pity parties accomplish nothing more than derailing whataboutism. Yes, not everybody is able to pay/host their own email. For the sake of everyone, especially those who cannot choose, you'd better hope those who can will spend the effort to stop supporting the surveillance companies.