Yes. Absolutely 100% agree. What I'm arguing is: if you are ready to annoy a tiny fraction of your users, you will get away with a simpler validation, that is better FOR YOU AS A COMPANY, because it has some benefits ranging from shady to just half-shady. This is why companies do this. Not just a small share of them, and not only because developers didn't understand the RFC.
I'm not arguing this is in any way good for end users. I'm saying it can be a good idea despite being horrible towards some users.
You keep arguing from the users' perspective when I'm saying "This is being an asshat to users, but it's worth it." The argument "That's bad for users!" isn't a counterargument to that
Sure. But my whole point is that all the other reasons are not legitimate, the whole point of blocking + is to cover the company's ass, there's no legitimate potential issues with notification, or even to prevent errors. It's just BS rationalisation.
Yes. Absolutely 100% agree. What I'm arguing is: if you are ready to annoy a tiny fraction of your users, you will get away with a simpler validation, that is better FOR YOU AS A COMPANY, because it has some benefits ranging from shady to just half-shady. This is why companies do this. Not just a small share of them, and not only because developers didn't understand the RFC.
I'm not arguing this is in any way good for end users. I'm saying it can be a good idea despite being horrible towards some users.
You keep arguing from the users' perspective when I'm saying "This is being an asshat to users, but it's worth it." The argument "That's bad for users!" isn't a counterargument to that