Yes, I am quite sure that in most countries the distribution of women/men within those groups are not equal and unbalanced towards men.
That said, being a member of the actual group doesn't mean not being in those people social groups, accepting or even sharing some of their ideas etc.
There are plenty of women in far right/neo-fascist etc. groups, and often people from those groups have relationships with other people from those groups. Your comment gives very much the impression that only males are fascists, which is absolutely not my experience dealing with Forza Nuova/Casapound people (both neo-fascists parties) in my youth.
I also see the male loneliness epidemic as an orthogonal problem to males being fascists, but that's yet another topic.
which is who I was referring to
So when you said
money you pay them go to support a facist
You meant Trump...Sorry, I am going to doubt that. I am quite sure that sentence meant "money you pay to Proton go to their CEO (a fascist)". Why money would go to Trump otherwise...is Proton sponsoring Trump? Hence my comment.
Alternatively, your comment was completely off-topic and unrelated to the post. Possible, I simply assumed you were not lost on the internet.
Wire transfer can still go through intermediaries, although I generally don't think these companies are in the business of selling data.
For example, a bank can use a service to connect to a scheme (say SEPA, or FPS, or whatever).
Source: I have been employed by a company who does this.
Yes, tuta encrypts the subject, which is not encrypted in Proton for example.
So, TLS is just a point-to-point encryption protocol, it doesn't prevent anybody of the parties involved from having access to the content. Once the email is encrypted with PGP, Proton loses permanently access to this content.
So this is pretty much what happens with a Gmail <-> Outlook and a Gmail <-> Proton email.
Gmail to outlook:
A writes the email in their editor <- TLS -> Google servers <-TLS-> outlook servers <-TLS-> B reads the email. While every communication is encrypted with TLS, every server has access to its content. Every time B accesses the email from outlook servers (I.e., their inbox), the data is transferred with TLS, but outlook is the "other end of the tunnel", so it has access to this content.
Gmail to Proton:
A writes the email in their editor <- TLS -> Google servers <-TLS-> Proton servers -> encrypt original message with B's public key and discard original -> send to B inbox -> Proton client decrypts email -> B accesses it.
So yes, it is
about making sure your data on the servers stays safe even if someone gains access
As long as you consider the email provider part of those potential "someone".
The way I would say it essentially is that PGP encryption (even in cases where the original messages was not using it) still gives you the confidentiality property of PGP, even without the integrity and non-repudiation properties (which are not possible to guarantee with respect of the original message of course). In other words, the biggest difference is that the email provider doesn't have access to your stuff.
Fun fact: Fascism is not thinking republicans will do better than democrats in pursuing antitrust battles against big tech for the benefit of smaller businesses.
Please don't use this word at random, plenty of people in my country (and many others) died fighting fascism.
If the authoritarian one does better than the conservative one in some regard, there should be the moral honesty to admit it and demand better. If it's not possible to do this, the political discourse is completely sterile, and there is no accountability for anybody. Which is exactly what the american political discourse looks like from outside. Italian politics is messed up, but I can't even imagine someone being attacked and labeled as a fascist/Meloni supporter for saying that Meloni government did one thing better than previous government or another party.
Also this whole thing happened before the government formed.
Supporting his choices and the Republican party at large is the problematic part. I don't care if he loves Trump or not.
He supported one choice, and for motivated reasons. You can disagree. It doesn't matter to me, but saying that republicans can do better than democrats in fighting big tech in the antitrust space doesn't make you a trump supporter. Especially when democrats shat their pants within this space.
Also I know you don't care, but the person I was responding to misrepresented the facts saying that he loves Trump.
So yeah, this opinion doesn't make anybody a fascist, a Nazi, a Trump lover etc. It's a totally legitimate critique of democrats actions, couple with an (unwarranted, in my opinion) optimistic take on republicans, in a specific context.
The fact that the american political debate is so toxic that even expressing this opinion is a problem is something to reflect on. Tons of people talking about democrats having faults (but republican being worse), but when someone points out actual things that historically Republicans did better than democrats (again, the very narrow context of antitrust vs big tech, which Republicans pushed because twitter, google etc. were mostly dem-leaning years ago) immediately the pitchforks are taken.
To be precise, even when an email is not from Proton user, they encrypt it with ypur public key, send it to you and delete it (they call it zero access). Which is the best you can get. Also managing PGP keys, especially on multiple devices is a pain.
There is not a single comment either on reddit or elsewhere that shows love for Trump. Supporting a Trump's choice doesn't mean supporting Trump.
This is very deresponsibilizing though. I don't think you can explain mass phenomena with it. To me it seems more reasonable to conclude that gender is not that relevant here and that social conditions, education, family upbringing etc. are.
And how do you explain poor people voting against their economic interests, immigrants voting for xenophobic parties etc.? I don't think that individual abuse can be used to explain every case, it feels as a way to rationalize something you can't justify otherwise (e.g., it's unimaginable how a woman would vote against her own autonomy). I do believe that everyone in a way is a victim of some kind of influence, marketing, societal pressure, class violence, different biases etc., but we need to draw a line at some point for people to be responsible for their shitty ideas.
To make an example, an immigrant who went through a tough immigration process, with all the anxiety and insecurity it caused, and finally managed to make it is probably going to suffer heavily of survivorship bias and it's not impossible they will be xenophobic against illegal immigrants and perhaps will even vote for whom proposes harsher immigration policies. You can argue that society abused them etc., but they are still responsible for their ideas.
So my point is that I don't disagree with you, but we can find exogenous reasons for why people have shitty ideas in all cases. Doing so though we deresponsibilize the individual from checking with themself and reflecting on their own positions. I think it's fair to consider that some people simply have shitty ideas, are greedy, selfish, racist, classist, or whatever else, without necessarily trying to trace back those ideas to some external factor.