Last time I checked, most of the stormfront members and most of the alt-right aren't committing any crimes against people who are coloured, just like how homosexuals don't commit crimes against heterosexual people.
> Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity?
Which singular person or entity should be responsible for determining what "hate speech" is? According to SJWiki I am a neurosexist for believing that men and women have different brains and that gender is not a social construct. Should SJWiki be trusted? According to the ADL, Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich are hate preachers. Should the ADL be trusted?
> Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?
Also it's a slippery slope because once the "hate speech" clampdown happens, we'll then be punished for microaggressions, so even if you're not a racist, you'll be seen as racist for asking what race or ethnicity someone is?
The funny thing about hate speech is that no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is.
Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.
I will stop using Gmail and move my email elsewhere as google banned the accounts of Jordan B Peterson and Dennis Cooper, people who do NOT spread hate. Google is a SJW company.
Protonmail is not anonymous. I tried to sign up with Tor and it asked me to validate my phone number. Also if you look at their Transparency Report, you'll see that they do data retention on the government's demand.
No. Lavabit could have programmed a backdoor into their web interface using the private keys that allows access to only one account, but the US government wasn't happy with that.
What I don't like is how the government demands to wiretap EVERY person's account regardless of there being no suspicion of crime in every account. How can that be justified? To stop future whistleblowers?
It reminds me of the Investigatory Powers Act in Britain which demands ISPs to log everyone's internet browsing history and the end of end-to-end encryption as all encryption will have to have backdoors.
All that will happen, is that anonymous email providers will move to countries which are privacy friendly. It's a game of whack a mole. There's already Sigaint which is an anonymous email provider which is hosted on Tor. I'll be using Sigaint, offshore hosting and I2VPN when I launch my anonymous website.
I'm saddened that for an "end-to-end encrypted" and "privacy" email service, that Protonmail is not anonymous. I tried to sign up with Tor and it asked me to validate my mobile number. Also if you read the Transparency Report, Protonmail does data retention for the government on certain accounts.
Nokia had a great platform with Symbian^3, Maemo and Meego. Steven Elop killed the company when he sold Nokia to Microsoft, he should have sold to Amazon. Then Nokia would be selling proper smartphones instead of feature phones.