Saying that the choice is between partial access or nothing at all implies there can be no other option. Also something is not necessarily better than nothing;

Saying that the choice is between partial access or nothing at all implies there can be no other option. Also something is not necessarily better than nothing; especially when that "something" influences societal norms or establishes powerful relationships. Let's say everyone in a small country has to travel 10 miles every day for work. They can walk the 10 miles or sign up for a free car. You might say it would be cruel to deny people the option of a free car, especially if they see nothing wrong with the terms and conditions. But what if the cars can only tune to radio stations that peddle the same message? So what, it's free, right? Well, what if there are no seat belts, air bags, or turn signals? At some point it's conceivable what began as an obviously good deal can actually bring a lot of harm. Given that this particular deal requires no SSL, I don't think this car analogy is that far off.