Yes, but that's their problem, not yours. I go for 120. If pressed for a standard, that's what most people would agree on.
“Most people” - if they are some how connected to the graphics/photographic industry and are familiar with the challenges of trying to use a computer display as a predictive device for printed output as well as the concept of color management, perhaps.
But that’s a pretty slim number of users out there. If you ask “most people” they would have no clue what you are talking about. And why should the great majority worry about using their displays this way, they have no need to use their systems to “predict” what a print would look like. And there is nothing wrong with using a display at a brighter setting or different white balance. Since that’s how the computer industry delivers the systems, that’s the “standard”, that’s the reality.
Additionally the environment of the computers is dramatically different for most users. While most doing this type of work have their workstations in room with controlled lighting, the normal display is often in a brightly lit room.
The rationale for not doing anything is there is no standard so how can you do anything. While true, it ignores facts, one of them is 99.999% of the displays out there are much brighter, from 160-220 cd/m2, and often a little cooler.
So one can ignore that fact because there is no standard, or can decide that while there is not a standard, there is one fact, and that is the average conditions are vastly different than the settings we use when trying to use the computer as a device to predict printed output.
There have been discussions on this before. I use to think there was nothing I should do. Then I went to a computer store and pulled my gallery up on 10 or 15 different machines. I started looking at my website when I was at friends homes. And I realized all my images looked weak and flat.
So to the OP, I have two settings for my NEC, one is for printed output, one is to tweak things for web jpegs. The web setting is 160 cd/m2, 6500k, sRGB. After experimenting with slight tweaks to my files for converting to web, I have settled on a very slight density increase, and a slight boost to vibrance and saturation. (these are settings within a photoshop action, not LR/ACR adjustments) Subtle and still look pretty good on my 115 cd/m2 calibrated display. Went down to the computer store, and things looked a little better. Still not perfect, but that will never happen. And I don’t try to “soft proof” every image, I pretty much just run with those settings.