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