34 ms·

In the ProtonMail Threat Model document[1], in the "What ProtonMail does not guard against" section, you should add "Dissenting Opinions". I know of at least o

by olah_1 7y ago

In the ProtonMail Threat Model document[1], in the "What ProtonMail does not guard against" section, you should add "Dissenting Opinions". I know of at least one case where a vocal right-wing personality had his account removed because he listed it as his contact. I understand ProtonMail is a private company and can do what they want. So they should be honest about not being a safe place for dissenting opinions. [1]: https://protonmail.com/blog/protonmail-threat-model/ https://protonmail.com/blog/protonmail-threat-model/

thiagomgd 7y ago
> had his account removed because he listed it as his contact. Do you have any link for that?
- olah_1 7y ago
  There used to be a list of deplatforming events that had the person, the platform, the date, and the alleged reason for deplatforming. I have no idea where that is hosted now though.
pstuart 7y ago
Though experiment: what if the "dissenting opinion" is advocating for human trafficking, with a specialization for children to be sold as sex slaves? Or something equally awful. Does the business have the right to refuse to service a customer that society should rightly condemn?
- nbabitskiy 7y ago
  I live in a city with population of about 15 million people, and for some time we had bakeries, claiming in print that they wouldn't serve f###### (anti-gay slur). Not sure if they're still around, but quite sure I don't like letting businesses discriminate whomever they'd like to.
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  A private business should have the right to refuse service for any reason they choose. I believe the point the original OP was trying to make is that a business should be transparent about its willingness to refuse service to those they find, "socially awful".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- frittig 7y ago
  Then the business could say that they don't serve people who advocate for illegal activity. If they also don't want to serve dinner people who advocate for legal activity, then they should be transparent about it

by olah_1 7y ago

thiagomgd 7y ago

> had his account removed because he listed it as his contact. Do you have any link for that?

olah_1 7y ago
There used to be a list of deplatforming events that had the person, the platform, the date, and the alleged reason for deplatforming. I have no idea where that is hosted now though.

pstuart 7y ago

Though experiment: what if the "dissenting opinion" is advocating for human trafficking, with a specialization for children to be sold as sex slaves? Or something equally awful. Does the business have the right to refuse to service a customer that society should rightly condemn?

nbabitskiy 7y ago
I live in a city with population of about 15 million people, and for some time we had bakeries, claiming in print that they wouldn't serve f###### (anti-gay slur). Not sure if they're still around, but quite sure I don't like letting businesses discriminate whomever they'd like to.
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
A private business should have the right to refuse service for any reason they choose. I believe the point the original OP was trying to make is that a business should be transparent about its willingness to refuse service to those they find, "socially awful".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
frittig 7y ago
Then the business could say that they don't serve people who advocate for illegal activity. If they also don't want to serve dinner people who advocate for legal activity, then they should be transparent about it