I don't think people should be wary of "what it could be used for" outside privacy violations or military action. The distinction "used for freedom vs control"

I don't think people should be wary of "what it could be used for" outside privacy violations or military action. The distinction "used for freedom vs control" is too vague/subjective. In this case, I think it's best just to hold companies accountable for discrimination that isn't based on some protected attribute. Companies lean to heavily on "right to refuse service (for any reason)" and "we can choose who to do business with". The fact we distinguish between "things you are allowed to discriminate on" and "thins you aren't" makes for a very convoluted process. Same with at-will employment tbh. We should just flip it from a "you need a reason to thing you were unjustly discriminated against" to "you need a good reason to fire someone".