[schalab]

Its a game of diminishing returns.

Assume there are 80% included in a game and 20% frozen out. Here it makes sense to change the rules of the game to include the other 20%.

Yes it might slightly inconvenience the 80% but the switch from not being included at all to playing the game for the 20% is huge. So, overall it might be a net positive.

Problem is when you get to a 98/2 split. Is it worth it to inconvenience such a large majority for the benefit of a very small minority. And how much are you going to change the rules?

Is it worth the reduced enjoyment/efficiency of the game?

At some point the trade off will become too much, and even moral/emotional arguments will not be enough to silence the dissent.

[2a0c40]

relevant: Taleb's minority rule.

cf. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

[mobjack]

Is it really that big of an inconvenience if they don't include gender pronouns in automated email responses?

How much revenue would Google be losing over such a decision?

Even if something only affects 2% of the population, the cost of getting it wrong may not be worth the benefits.

[pjc50]

In this case it's more like a 50/50 split.