You're just repeating the "it's technically imperfect" argument again.
You are saying that "Anything we do is better than nothing." Which I might agree with in certain situations, but this here is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Next to impossible to get a person who believes this that they're engaging in a cognitive distortion though. I tried the same thing you're doing, once. I gave up. They will die on this hill and then wonder why they lost long after everyone else had moved on.
It's possible to make effective arguments in line with their values. They simply don't want to be helped.
The same can be told for your thinking. You (and several other posters) lumped several arguments into the same Nirvana fallacy [1]:
1. It's not 100% effective
2. It's only 50% effective
3. It is not even 10% effective
These are very different from each other. The first one may actually mean what you described (either something works perfectly or it's useless) but the others must be discussed separately.
- If it's not even 10% effective, don't waste any resources. Replace it with another method.
- If it's 10% - 50% effective, improve it.
- If it's >50% effective, it's probably fine, leave it.
My point it that there can be many other shades of grey here. It's not fair to lump all opponents of the current implementation into the same basket.
It looks like you decided to self-insert into a critique that doesn't involve you and then decide that means the critique is wrong.
Also yes, that's how online forums work. I'm surprised that you haven't figured it out yourself even though you self-inserted into a critique of the social media ban that doesn't involve you.
You're acting like I accused you of black or white thinking. If you caught a stray, it's because of interpellation.