[lpapez]

Unless you're trying to be edgy (which is not obvious), this make you sound like a psychopath.

[adam_arthur]

I’m simply stating the obvious. The parent commenter is factually incorrect.

Relying on companies to self police morality is an idealistic view that results in failure. That’s where the democracy and government part comes in.

Twitter is required by law to be compliant with accessibility standards, and so they will be. Whether or not this team is laid off doesn’t change that

[lpapez]

And I agree, but that is not how I read your comment.

If you expanded it with "There are no moral requirements... for companies to provide accessibility features" it would have been entirely different story.

[adam_arthur]

People can read into it whatever they want. I was just stating a fact.

Personally I’m perturbed that so many people expect society to work out of goodwill and not through enforced regulations decided by the voters.

Certainly that world would be nice, but it’s naive and ineffective

[lpapez]

I don't think people downvote you because we "expect society to work out of goodwill and not through enforced regulations decided by the voters", but because your blanket statmenet denying the existince of moral requirements is interpreted negatively. I for one agree that relying just on morals is not enough and that regulations is needed, but your sentence is obviously not universally interpreted in that light.