Received from Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io at 10/1/2018 03:16 PM UTC:
Why do people believe that they have a right not to be offended or excluded?
There is no right not to be offended, but there is a reasonable expectation that a service offered to the public should avoid exclusion of a rather substantial class of subscriber ... namely those who post via email. That expectation DOES NOT arise from that class of user having rights, but rather from the idea that it's just a bad business decision to exclude them.
I have absolutely no problem with a decision to exclude that's made by individual group owners. I don't want to be where I'm not wanted. On the other hand... and it's the point I've been making that never gets addressed in any responses to me... I think it would be wrong if post/reply via web-only were to be the ONLY option Groups.io offers if anonymous groups are implemented.
If Groups.io didn't offer posting via email I would still be back on Yahoo... still looking desperately for somewhere better to go, but Groups.io would be out of the running. It's an absolutely essential feature for a product like Groups.io... and to implement anonymous groups in a manner that excludes posting via email will most certainly cause some upset among those posting via email. And if not RIGHTfully so, then at least EXPECTEDLY so. It would be - in my opinion - a bad business decision.
To repeat the analogy I offered to J, with no response, that would be little different than a restaurant owner excluding customers who arrive in a red car. It's not a good business decision. No shirt, no shoes, no service has a valid purpose, but we only allow patrons who arrive in web colored cars, not email colored cars, is offensive and therefore isn't the best business decision for Gio or its customers.
Perhaps Mark will chime in here.
And with that I'm DONE on this topic.