No, the percentage reasoning is wrong completely. There is a well known novel that ties “acceptable” percentage of suffering “when living in a society”, geometric progression of “good” expected to result from killing someone, and an actual pawn broker whose percent is considered too high to be “fair”. A century and a half later, people still don't get it.

We can make that calculating approach universal. What percent of your neighbors is not good enough in general? What percent of all people on Earth? If we start close inspections, we will find that not a lot of people pass the test… and the rest can inevitably be discarded and excluded. Let's not forget about yourself, what's your percentage? Are you good enough to join other Freenet users? That's the opposite side of original question.

Moral choice can not be calculated, it turns into something else when one does it.

I didn't say you should try to reduce it to a math problem. It's just that you need information before you can make choices.

And I think "there's some kind of fuzzy threshold where you should stop assisting someone" is a much better plan than "never assist anyone" or "always assist anyone, even hitler".

(If you think that's a strawman, you need to explain how the way you do things doesn't fit any of those three options.)

(And I'm not talking about hurting someone, or depriving them of basic human rights. Just not going out of my way to help them do what they want.)