- The world's population is mired in the greatest ignorance about the threat of the digital agenda
- The propaganda of institutions criminalizing privacy is producing discrimination
- How is discrimination based on choices of conduct and services?
- While bureaucrats and institutions, they are dedicated to generating division for their own benefit by fostering conflicts within society.
They distract the gaze of public opinion from the current digital agenda, whose only objective is oppression, since the power of institutions will become absolute with the application of computer tools, they will be able to ensure a state of perpetual surveillance that will torment daily life allowing them to impose all kinds of draconian measures without any resistance.
This is how they encourage and hide a particular type of discrimination that is based on consumption patterns. In particular, the decisions that users make around privacy and security, has become a subject even criminalized due to the incessant and incoherent propaganda around "technological wonders."
The Insidious Propaganda
IT services are advertised for their ability to streamline processes and make life easier for individuals, but can also inadvertently sustain and even reinforce the biases that shape the perceptions and interactions of society.
One of the most striking and insidious manifestations of this phenomenon is the discrimination that many people experience because they use privacy-focused communication services like certain privacy-focused e-mail services.
These platforms are unknown to most of society, since they are absolutely controlled by propaganda, and convinced even of the illusion that the big corporations are their "friends" and do not seek to exploit the data of their private life by creating a system of servility.
This ignorance makes many privacy-focused services unknown, unlike mainstream email and social media providers like Gmail, Meta (Facebook), Outlook or Yahoo.
Since many of these corporations do not deserve such trust when they have been discovered sucking personal data, demanding unnecessary data such as phone numbers and lobbying to enforce the use of useless biometric data.
People are not informed about digital privacy
Meanwhile, it is ironic that the general public does not even know what kind of digital tools are with the primary goal of protecting users' privacy through end-to-end encryption, anonymous registration options, and strict security controls.
In recent years, there has been a deepening of a global tendency on the part of corrupt corporations and institutions to invade the private sphere through the use of aggressive technologies and policies.
Under the fake excuse of "security" corporations are increasingly oppressing people's lives, subtly imposing a business of "permissions" with which they condition the behaviors and behaviors of entire populations, destroying their sovereignty and introducing draconian mediates that even intend to modify to diet and customs.
As a result, privacy-focused tools have been becoming increasingly necessary, and are preferred by individuals seeking to protect sensitive information, activists, journalists, or those who simply value their digital privacy.
However, its very nature - signaling a greater concern for security and privacy - can sometimes lead to unwanted social consequences.
People who believe blindly in propaganda and its general slogan of the "wonderful world of technologies" feel justified to discriminate against people who use services that guarantee privacy, they exclude, marginalize, isolate and mistreat people who do not use conventional services from mainstream (MAINSTREAM).
The stigmatism of privacy
Emerging studies and evidence prove this trend: emails sent from privacy providers often find lower response rates, are ignored completely, receive vulgar and basic responses, or simply ignore them completely.
However they react perfectly well compared to messages sent through conventional services.Why does this happen? It relates to the social perceptions and prejudices surrounding consumption patterns.
Users who prioritize privacy are stigmatized through subconscious stereotypes: they are perceived as suspicious, reserved or less transparent.
All this is prompted by the violence of the propaganda of the institutions that unfairly remark that privacy has to disappear "for security" and that those who care about this are criminals.
Lobbying to criminalize privacy and impose a service system
The bureaucrats are desperate to impose their system of "services" where no one will be free to live, except to have "permits," so they will manage to turn every aspect of life into a draconian system for their own benefit by exploiting entire populations subjected to an oppressive environment of digital servility.
That is why they cause division by generating these biases, based on misconceptions or stereotypes, distort the way recipients interpret and respond to communications based solely on the domain of email or transmission data.
Moreover, discrimination goes beyond individual responses. In professional or social settings, the choice of using privacy-focused tools can influence how individuals are perceived or judged.
For example, propaganda and excuses legitimize those who care about privacy to be seen as overly cautious or even paranoid by people who favor more traditional, 'trusted' platforms.
Over time, this can become tangible social or professional disadvantages: undermining trust, reducing opportunities, or fostering subtle forms of exclusion.
Digital Discrimination
Contrary to what apologists claim as "inclusion" in technology, its design and application concealingly reflects social norms, biases and power structures, accentuating disparities rather than diminishing them.
When certain patterns of consumption, such as preferring privacy-focused tools, become markers of social difference, they are to reinforce a cycle of discrimination that extends far beyond the digital realm.
Discrimination occurs when individuals or groups are treated less favourably because of their membership in a particular social group or category, including those defined by lifestyle, preferences or behaviors such as consumption patterns.
This can be manifested in various forms, including direct or indirect discrimination, when seemingly neutral rules or practices disproportionately affect certain groups.
Discrimination and Persecution for Digital Life Choices
It is possible to say that some people discriminate against others because of their consumption habits or choices. Rejecting the service or mistreating someone because they use a privacy-focused email service can be considered a form of discrimination based on behavior and consumption patterns
While anti-discrimination laws often protect characteristics such as race, religion or gender, not the choice of digital service providers, the practical effect of blocking or degrading the service to users of certain e-mail platforms disproportionately affects people interested in privacy, political dissent or oppressed groups.
This may amount to indirect or systemic discrimination, in particular when:
- Emails from privacy-focused providers are automatically marked as spam or blocked by corporate filters.
- Companies or institutions refuse to participate, citing unsubstantiated security concerns, despite no evidence of real risk.
- Users face slower response times or are treated with suspicion based solely on their email domain.
As noted in reports of ProtonMail users who have experienced widespread spam folder filtering by Gmail and corporate networks, even though they had no malicious intent, making reliable communication difficult.
This technical gatekeeping works as a barrier based on digital behavior, effectively discriminating against those who prioritize privacy.
Although not always illegal, these practices reflect digital exclusion and bias against the use of non-mainstream digestive services, raising ethical concerns about equity and access.
The bias against Privacy
