[vrighter]

So it's just a lot of hot air, simply because it is not the government that is restricting our right to compute. But the device makers, and software developers.

Google deciding to monopolize app installations is a restriction on computing. Not the government.

Device makers locking bootloaders is a restriction on computing. Not the government.

Bank applications refusing to run unless running on a blessed-by-google firmware on a device with a locked bootloader is a restriction on computing. Not the government.

[votepaunchy]

> So it's just a lot of hot air, simply because it is not the government that is restricting our right to compute. But the device makers, and software developers.

No, it is only the government which can restrict these rights through violence and the threat of violence. Sony cannot restrict you from buying an Xbox or Nintendo.

[vrighter]

But sony, microsoft and nintendo all heavily restrict what you can use their computer for, and what software you can run on it.

This is not a free-market issue. Yes, I am still free to buy another device. But if all device makers heavily restrict access, then this is a bunch of feel-good nonsense.

[cestith]

It is a free market issue, because when an oligopsony controls what can be bought and sold you don’t have a free market. These hardware vendors are controlling the market for software for their devices, and buyers are not free to make their own decisions about hardware they purportedly own.

[anikom15]

You are also free to alter the device in any way you want as long as it doesn’t start emitting radio waves.

[vrighter]

Modifying the hardware != running the software I want on the hardware I own.

So yes, your last statement is correct, but utterly irrelevant to this discussion.