[Gormo]

I think you'd be better served making moral arguments rooted in ethical principles that people adhere to in real life, not science fiction.

This is especially important when you consider how unethical the Prime Directive itself is as a principle, and how often Star Trek portrays violating it as the morally superior choice.

The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize people in rural areas and undeveloped nations, and aims to deny them the agency to make their own choices about how to fit modern technology into their lives and communities. It sounds like a modern variation on "noble savage" and "white man's burden" notions -- not exactly a good look.

[RunSet]

> The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize people in rural areas and undeveloped nations

I believe it seems that way to you.

Many people (in particular unemancipated minors) might likewise consider it infantilizing to place a minimum age requirement on drivers' licenses, firearms, alcohol, etc. yet the consensus is that doing so is for the greater good.

[Gormo]

> Many people (in particular unemancipated minors) might likewise consider it infantilizing to place a minimum age requirement on drivers' licenses, firearms, alcohol, etc.

It seems unremarkable that we tend to treat actual children like children, but it's far less mundane to propose treating mature adults like children on the presupposition that due to their cultural or ethnic origins, they must exist in an immutable childlike state. The latter is an extremely dangerous notion, and we ought to be wary of anyone who advances it.

> yet the consensus is that doing so is for the greater good.

I'm not sure that any 'greater good' calculus is part of any consensus whatsoever.