There are a million ways to try to deny the forbidden conclusion, but none of them has withstood empirical scrutiny. Twin studies, adoption studies, etc. The only hypothesis that fits the data is that different races have different distributions of intelligence.
There's no reason this should be surprising. Races differ in height, musculature, bone structure, etc. We know that smart people tend to have smart kids and dumb people tend to have dumb kids. Why would intelligence be exempt from variation across races when no other complex heritable trait is?
You're indulging in a huge fiction: that people freely choose what to read and what to believe. Your beliefs are a product of your environment, and your environment was traditionally mostly your family and broader community and country, but today your environment includes massive online oligopolies that have extreme power due to network effects.
If your country is consuming information through the filter of the American coastal elite, then they are likely to come to believe in the things that the American elite believes, to despise the things that the American elite despises. We can meaningfully speak of individuals having a choice to believe this or that, but as a society, that kind of domination of information will predictably drive people to believe what they are told to believe.
Do some research about exactly who is randomly attacking all of these Asians. You'll find that I'm right: it's basically just a huge uptick in black-on-asian violence.
I've seen no evidence of increased asian-related racial tensions aside from black people cold-cocking more Asians than usual. I don't think black street criminals are taking their cues from Trump or Mike Pompeo.
Trump Derangement Syndrome (which is more than mere opposition to Trump) is a religious phenomenon and its adherents are just as incapable of acknowledging their irrationality as fundamentalists of any religion.
So the question is who decides. Do you let rich coastal Americans determine what you're allowed to talk about or do you let local powers make those decisions? Indians aren't very fond of foreign rule, and no control is more potent than control over information and ideas.
They face a hostile media and political complex, as well as several thousand aggressively activist employees, that all demand that right-wing information be suppressed.
If Facebook doesn't do what those groups demand, they will be smeared in the media, suffer internal strife, and face punitive antitrust probes.
And of course, many tech executive are true believers in left-wing politics and like that they can use their positions to advance those ideas.
No good guys but the oligarchic silicon valley information complex is a definite bad guy that crowds out competing platforms where alternative views might flourish.
But maybe it will be run by Indian people, who will enforce Indian values, and who are accountable to their Indian families and Indian peers and Indian law.
Funny that no one was banned for saying, as many did, that it was impossible for it to have come from a Chinese lab. Those asymmetries in enforcement always seem to lean in the same direction.
No, it's because the platform policies enforce a foreign social order. In America, we have our own pieties and taboos and these social media platforms heavily enforce them. Transgenderism, homosexuality, racial equality, gender roles, not every country holds American or European views on those, but those are the only views that are fully allowed on American social media platforms.
India has its own social order. Why should it let its online discourse be controlled by the American social order?
The point is they dismissed it out of hand and banned anyone who said otherwise. Btw, liberal news outlets are finally admitting now that the lab leak hypothesis is probably right.
No sane country can allow their public discourse to be controlled by the peculiar moral pieties of the American elite class. True, important information, e.g. that covid-19 may have originated in a Chinese lab, is actively suppressed by these platforms as part of an internal American struggle for control of information and ideas. Any people that value their own self-determination must reduce the influence of these manipulative platforms on their domestic market.
Since Bitwarden is end-to-end encrypted, the risk isn't who hosts the data but who controls chrome extension and App Store updates. Bitwarden's servers being compromised would cause you no harm except data loss, but a malicious client update could steal all of your passwords.
Some people are not self-driven but can still do good work if subjected to stronger authority. It's ultimately a business decision as to whether it's worth providing that kind of authority.
But note that to the extent that someone suffers from ADHD and just needs a stronger hand from their manager as an accommodation in order to be productive, you might be legally required to give it to them.
There's no reason this should be surprising. Races differ in height, musculature, bone structure, etc. We know that smart people tend to have smart kids and dumb people tend to have dumb kids. Why would intelligence be exempt from variation across races when no other complex heritable trait is?