This has absolutely nothing to do with "might makes right". If a fast food store decides to offer a Vietnamese Peanut Burger and Sugar Cane Juice combo, nut allergy suffers are not "morally entitled" to a nut-free option and diabetics are not "morally entitled" to a sugar-free juice option. This applies whether the fast food store is a small family run business, or McDonalds.

To suggest that customers are "morally entitled" to a Samsung phone with zero tracking and zero telemetry is similarly absurd. If you don't like Samsung's product, don't buy it.

> If a fast food store decides to offer a Vietnamese Peanut Burger and Sugar Cane Juice combo, nut allergy suffers are not "morally entitled" to a nut-free option and diabetics are not "morally entitled" to a sugar-free juice option.

Why not? What gives McD the right to make such a decision unilaterally, other than might?

In fact, this is how disability legislation (for example) already tends to work. You don't get to tell disabled people to just go somewhere else, you have to make reasonable accomodations for them.

> What gives McD the right to make such a decision unilaterally

This cannot be a serious question.

> nut allergy suffers are not "morally entitled" to a nut-free option

Restaurant have a legal obligation to warn the customers. AKA "opt-in" which is NOT what Apple is doing. And it's the whole issue with their behavior.

Apple's food scientists have verified the food safety of their new recipe, and they are sufficiently confident that nobody will suffer any allergic reaction. Nobody has disputed their assessment.

All consumers can engage in is Info Wars style paranoia, and grandstanding about the aforementioned paranoia.