> Should implies an obligation. That is a weird phasing. By "should" I mean that it is a good thing to call out bad things that happen, such as in this case

> Should implies an obligation. That is a weird phasing. By "should" I mean that it is a good thing to call out bad things that happen, such as in this case with these apps, and I am happy when the US retaliates against bad things, such as what is happening in this example. The reason being, that these apps are doing bad things that should be stopped. You have not contradicted this point. > established they're bad In this specific case though, regarding these app and the actions that they are taking, they are bad though! > You live in a democracy, this is your will. Ok. And bad things being punished in this specific example. Thats good. And misdirection to talk about something different does not overrule the fact that it is good in this specific example that these specific bad things are being punished/retaliated against. > gives it a morally acceptable varnish. Specifically in this example, it is morally accepted to punish these specific bad things that these apps are doing though. So there are no problem with retaliating against these apps and actions, because in this example they are indeed bad and should be retaliated against.