"I'm not here to be interviewed, I'm going to interview you" "These tremendous company benefits totally suck" "It is my divine right to work from home" "Co-workers are to be seen and not heard" etc etc
However, you could similarly mock most decisions we make in the marketplace. If you live in the first world and you are shopping for houses or apartments, you might decide against one because of the decor. That would seem ridiculously privileged from the perspective of someone who lives in a mud hut. But the fact is that you have options, and you have to choose somehow.
A developer with 10 good job choices has to choose somehow. Whatever differentiates those jobs will be a small matter. But it will be a difference. If the market for developers tanks, we'll lower our standards.
I can't reply so [edit], now you're going to tell me "that's how language works"? I stopped reading right there.
It just seems that you say it's wrong for the employees to have the edge, but not for the employer to have it. In another industry there's a lot more job seekers than available positions (e.g. the supply of jobs is lower than the demand). In those industries the company has the edge, it's entitled to hold all power in an interview situation, and can filter applications that try to make certain demands.
In the tech industry, there's big demand for experienced developers. Software engineers can choose a job from several good options. Therefore the applicants are entitled to make certain demands, like asking questions from the employer.
Besides, many employers except this, and say in the beginning of the interview that it's a "two-way interview".
Your comment made it seem that it's okay for only one side to be entitled, that is the company instead of the individual.