> Yes, but then the disabled individuals would have been mentally traumatized.

This is absolutely backwards, as it is based upon the presumption that disabled individuals are so fragile that they cannot face any adversity or be "traumatized."

That's just reverse-discrimination, and it's just as damaging as outright discrimination.

> Companies shouldn't avoid doing things just to avoid negative press.

Companies aren't going to arrange themselves along moral lines, we've seen this failure too many times to think it's a possible or even desirable goal. Negative press is a useful tool and is simply reflective of our societies attitudes and morals.

I'm perfectly fine with companies using "negative press" as a bellwether for internal policy.

> They're providing a service for the people.

...and those people _willingly_ decide if they want to use it or not.

> the presumption that disabled individuals are so fragile

No such presumption. Lots of people, especially kids, can become traumatised by bullying. This argument seems like concern trolling to be honest.

> and those people _willingly_ decide if they want to use it or not.

Children can willingly decide to gamble or buy a beer but we as a society don't let them. And we don't just leave it up to the parents in those situations either.

> And we don't just leave it up to the parents in those situations either.

...well, with beer we often do, in the US, at least: https://www.alcohol.org/laws/underage-drinking/

You realize that you're comparing obese people and adults with Tourette's Syndrome to children?

This argument seems like trolling trolling, to be honest.

>Companies aren't going to arrange themselves along moral lines, we've seen this failure too many times to think it's a possible or even desirable goal.

It is hard and even the best companies do it imperfectly, but those caveats don't make it any less valuable. I also think it's silly to say that trying to do less harm relies on a presumption that people cannot withstand any harm. Even if people can take it, it would be good to hurt them less.

This isn't a situation of mutual exclusion. Individuals decide if they want to keep using products and we should talk about if practices are harmful. The two practices inform each other - people can have well-meaning critiques that use reveals as wrong and people can discover, through critique, that the product they liked is actually harming their lives.

Bingo! You did a great job explaining this reverse-discrimination/preemptive excessive PCness that so many people advocate for yet are just apart of the problem (or close to it) as their corresponding counter-parts on the other end of the spectrum.

I think that is the parent poster's point. They tried to do something that to them seemed like it would help people, but ended up in a scandal instead. This is how apathy spreads.

No, that's not the parent poster's point.

From parent post: > If they had just let disabled individuals get cyber bullied they could have avoided this negative press altogether.

i think the assumption is that the op was being sarcastic.

While I'm not surprised that a Chinese company was the first to do this, the criticism has nothing to do with them being Chinese.

Show me an American or European social media company that discriminates in this way and I will show you the same level outrage.

Disabled individuals don’t necessarily have mental disabilities. Why do they need to be protected from bullying anymore than a typical obese/short/tall/whatever person?