And Google advertises Android as free, open source, linux-based OS. "open" is supposed to mean I can do whatever I want with it but in fact I cannot even access the iptables.
If it is an Android phone with Google Play store then it is definitely Google's fault. Maybe Google should stop manufacturers from installing Android on their phones when they are doing things like this.
You want me to tell you why Google won't do anything, because Google doesn't give a crap about what manufacturers do as long as they keep installing Android on as many phones as possible and in return they get more advertising dollars.
The phone has Google Services including Play Store (which I never used because it needs a Google Account, so I download software either from F-droid or from apkpure). But I don't know if it is licensed. It is noname chinese manufacturer that probably doesn't care much about american copyright (and GPL too because I could not find any links to linux kernel source code at their website).
> You want me to tell you why Google won't do anything, because Google doesn't give a crap about what manufacturers do as long as they keep installing Android on as many phones as possible
Google could allow controlling firewall on Android (and getting root access). The only reason they don't do it is because then users will be able to block tracking and advertisement.
> If it is an Android phone with Google Play store then it is definitely Google's fault. Maybe Google should stop manufacturers from installing Android on their phones when they are doing things like this.
If it's GMS Certified, sure.
It's possible (common even) for some shady OEMs to install Google Play Store, despite not being GMS certified. Asking them to prevent that is a lot like demanding a stop to all software piracy.
because Google doesn't give a crap about what manufacturers do as long as they keep installing Android on as many phones as possible and in return they get more advertising dollars.
Microsoft has to address the amount of crapware vendors ship and the permissions they have and deffinitely plays some games of chicken with them to try to keep windows market share.
While it makes sense to hit the vendors directly to the extent possible, it also costs these platforms trust when most of the ways users end up with them have them compromised from day one. I.e. do I give relatives a list of vendors I think might be safe to use without a complete wipe and fresh install? For windows that is impossible.
"Open" means the re-distributor can do whatever they want with it, as long as they pass along the source under the same license. Software licenses with strings attached like "you must let end-users access the iptables" are emphatically nonfree.
Upvoting because you are absolutely 100% correct (and because I'm trying to help prevent HN from becoming more like Reddit where everyone "downvotes to oblivion" statements they don't like).