[DoreenMichele]

Idealism?

I'm not an idealist. I'm a pragmatist.

But the internet allows businesses to operate virtually in de facto war zones. This is getting people killed when the business tries to act like they don't need to account for that fact.

If they physically went into a war zone to sell products and it was getting people killed, would that merit a "Too bad, so sad. Gotta make money, doncha know. Can't be worried about niggling details like not getting our customers cavalierly killed."

[fluoridation]

How could a business possibly account for that in a way that doesn't make doing business over the Internet logistically impossible?

[DoreenMichele]

The arguments I'm seeing here boil down to "It's okay to go in with your tank full of tchochky souvenirs and run over a few powerless locals to protect yourself so you can make a few bucks."

The general trend is that, when in doubt, Twitter should cover its own ass. I would like to see a standard of "When in doubt, don't run over pedestrians with your tank."

Surely a company can come up with some best practices that err in the right direction here. Or maybe that's expecting too much of the best of the best of the best, sir!

[fluoridation]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing an answer to my question.