People would go to great lengths to follow tutorials on the internet to disable things they were told were bad for them. The less qualified, the more likely that they fell for the "updates are bad, they ruin your computer" narrative. As long as there's an option that can be abused, people will be tricked into allowing it.

This is less relevant for the current discussion about the FireTV and this feature. It's for the more general discussion of being able to do whatever you want on a device you own.

> The less qualified, the more likely that they fell for the "updates are bad, they ruin your computer" narrative.

Bad example; this "narrative" is true as often as it isn't.

> You don't have to allow all users everything, but you should allow those who want, to do as they please.

Perhaps. Perhaps that should also mean there are consequences to their actions and they get disconnected from shared systems.

Some fraction will still stumble upon it anyways and will still refuse to take any responsibility for enabling it, what then?

You can't force them to change their mind.

But why should everyone else suffer because of that small fraction?

The real answer: users are captive. For the vendors, they're cattle. And like with any good big farm, it does not matter how much it sucks for the cattle - but it does matter the cattle is safe, because few bad cases can become known and risk your farm getting shut down.

I didn't say anything about who should or should not?

Are you sure you responded to the right comment?

'Krasnol argued for keeping powerful/dangerous features, but making them opt-in (and a bit of a hassle to enable). You countered that there will be "some fraction" of users incapable of not hurting themselves with those features, who "will still stumble upon it anyways and will still refuse to take any responsibility for enabling it". My counter to that is that we shouldn't remove such power features just because "some fraction" may find and misuse them.

That's the should/should not part. The rest is my take on why companies remove those features anyway - they have no incentive to provide anything above bare minimum, especially not when they could be on the hook for "some fraction"'s mishaps.

Perhaps you are misreading my comment?

I didn't raise the 'should/should not part' at all, you are the one who raised the point. I'm focused on actual facts and possibilities in this comment chain.

You can ignore them, though, not everyone can be saved