How about switching to reasonable alternatives when you can (and use the Google product as a fallback)? For example, OSM is fine for daily navigation, there are plenty of cloud storage solutions and email providers. Obviously there's going to be some cost to pay for not being in Google's walled garden, but using the alternatives (and donating to them) stimulates their development.
This website is essentially 6 lines of text and a web form. This could be implemented in, say, 25 kilobytes of PHP code.
Your website took around 6 seconds to load, weighs 3.5MB and requires my machine to pull data from about 17 different domains.
I realize that you (assuming you are the author of this site) are mostly just following current web design trends (single page websites) so I'm not putting the blame squarely on you, but how is this even remotely reasonable? Honestly, I prefer the average 90's website to this.
Sociology isn't maths. Social groups almost always have some internal diversity. That doesn't mean they aren't meaningful categories. Christianity shares a common core of beliefs. It has a common narrative. It has a large set of overlapping beliefs. The same goes for Muslims (and Buddhists, libertarians, you get it).
There are sweet apples, sour apples and everything in between. That doesn't mean it would make sense to start pondering on which of those really are apples, nor whether you should try to sell them in a neighborhood known not to like apples.
Sure, you can subset Muslims into different groups and branches, and some of those will be more compatible with Western society than others. The net impact with zero filtering however is negative.
A Muslim is a follower and believer of Islam. A non-Muslim from a Muslim country is not a Muslim, while a Muslim is. I really don't get why you're asking this. I assume the answer would be obvious if we were talking about Christianity or libertarianism or any other distinct set of beliefs: if you believe in them, you are a believer.
Whether any belief system has the potential to cause problems for a society depends on the content of that belief system and the content of the belief systems already present in that society. In the case of Islam in particular, there are two facts worth noting:
First, a strong case can be made for major compatibility problems of mainstream Sunni Islam (MAI) with Western societies. I won't go into details here, but very generally speaking, MAI has a theocratic component: Muslims should, in theory, strive towards the implementation of sharia law. As a body of laws and in terms of its axioms, sharia is simply incompatible with the Western legal tradition. I'm sure that what I'm saying here is not controversial among MAI Muslims. Your average Muslim (assuming he's honest) will corroborate this.
Second, Muslims come from a culture that is very unlike that of the US. Even if there were no incompatibilities, the bare fact that they're so culturally distant poses a barrier to the formation of the social bonds that are necessary for high trust, high cohesion communities and societies. In case that's not obvious: people generally bond more with others with whom they share the same cultural reference frame and state of mind.
Supposing you grant me these two arguments, then the potential for causing problems for a society is established. Whether that potential is actualized depends on the demographic weight a group has and the extent to which it is willing to compromise.
Speaking as a Dutchman (and realizing that the demographics of our Muslim population differ substantial from that of the US), it is clear to me that Muslims as a group cause problems in both senses. For example, in areas where there is a substantial Muslim demographic, there are now local political parties that explicitly cater to them. We never asked for this and we don't want it, but now we're stuck having to deal with it and with the social friction that comes with it. Another example: schools with substantial numbers of Muslim pupils are subject to great social pressures by this group, with some not being able to discuss certain topics anymore (Holocaust, criticism of Islam, cheering Muslim pupils during the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo shootings) and concessions being made at the cost of native students such as defaulting to halal food. If you want sources for any of these claims, let me know.
This is exactly the kind of thought terminating cliché that makes people despise the Left and vote Trump. Of course Muslims are people. So are Buddhists, murderers, mothers, Nazis, and so on. In fact, literally all people are people. A kindergartner can tell you as much, so how is this anything other than dismissive, empty rhetoric?
The real issue is obviously not their humanity, but their beliefs. It makes total sense to see them foremost as Muslims given the importance of Islam to their identity. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you're dehumanizing these people, it simply means that you're not willfully blind to the fact that beliefs substantially influence how people behave.
The real questions that should be asked and addressed revolve around the compatibility of that identity with the US society. Do US citizens like living among Muslims (i.e. people that are culturally quite distant from themselves)? Does it introduce ideological and social friction? Does it enhance society or not?
Those are the questions that the liberal Left doesn't even attempt to answer, because they're completely fixated on abstract moral dogmas (-isms like racism, sexism), which coincidentally is a privilege often afforded by not having to suffer the actual social consequences of those dogmas.
"He isn't so bad after all. Just an unpolished diamond forced into scamming by his environment!"
Running these scams doesn't require any kind of above average intelligence or rhetorical and technological skills. All this guy is doing is browsing social media websites for lonely men and pretend to be a pretty girl from a third world country to them. It's a no-brainer. I strongly doubt Omar has any skills that would get him an above average job.
I don't get how you can be so cognizant of the problem of misaligned values while at the same time having an unquestionable faith in the value of diversity. How can you avoid cognitive dissonance here, except through a very shallow understanding of diversity that assumes all people or groups of people hold roughly the same values and beliefs and that where they differ, the difference never results in unresolvable incompatibility?
Ever wondered about the popularity of foot fetish? Why would you associate such a relatively dirty body part with sexual arousal, right? Guess what, the feet and toes are on the same gyrus as the genitals.