It wouldn't be a random person. It would be the country.

In this case, the guy with the problem is living outside of the country in question. He would still have access to Twitter but the people causing him problems potentially wouldn't.

My personal background includes a parent who grew up in Germany during WW2 and its aftermath, a parent who was a two-time decorated veteran and an ex boyfriend whose political activism cost him 3 years in prison in his youth. He was questioned under torture.

I mean random person in the veil of ignorance sense. If I was a random person in Pakistan, would my life be better or worse because access to the broader social web was cut off? It seems plain to see that it would be worse for most, and on the average.

So, what part of my position do you not understand? I've consistently advocated for them to improve their moderating practices here.

It's other people who insist that is unrealistic to whom I have replied "If they can't handle the task, they do have the option to simply leave this market instead of making excuses about how they have no choice but to go along with (various bad things)."

I'm not impressed with such excuses. A business located outside of a country with serious problems of this sort is not required to operate in that market. If they choose to, they should make an effort to make moderating policies that reasonably account for the fact that people there have issues not commonly seen in someplace like the US.

There is an option to continue to do the best they can, even if it's not great, because even a poorly moderated twitter is better than no twitter. It's only by over focusing on cases like those in the submission and ignoring all the regular people in Pakistan going about their business not paying a lick of attention to any of this that you could make the case that twitter leaving Pakistan would be an improvement.