Your solution to income inequality is to stunt success by refusing opportunities to earn more, as if that makes anything better for anyone. So someone else will come along and profit from those opportunities, likely a person less qualified if those options genuinely would have gone to you. This means less quality/productivity in general.
Further, how does stunting your own success do anything at all for the lower end of "income inequality"? Are you just gambling that a left-handed lesbian eskimo woman will end up making the money you are passing up instead of a hard-working, privilege-ridden honky? Or, if it's pay increases you are not pursuing, you are only enriching your employer in the name of social justice. Obviously you may be working for one of the few worthwhile non-profits or have some other unusual situation happening, but without that info yes, your OP comes off as SJW nonsense.
The unwanted upgrades aren't related to the unlimited storage issue.
The FTC probably hasn't received complaints about the unlimited storage issue.
I think a lot of people would agree with your take on it, but I won't hold it against someone when something with reasonable intent becomes an onerous, unreasonable burden. Any rational person *knows* there is a point where "taking advantage of this generous offer" becomes "being a pain in the ass that breaks it for everyone" because they ruin the product's sustainability. It's just a debate about where the point lies.
Hate Speech is speech that keeps a minority group down. It's not about being offensive, it actually causes harm.
So the definition of hate speech has nothing to do with accuracy, truth, or facts. How very useful to anyone trying to control the marketplace of ideas.
To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.