[mschuster91]

> Those in power want the opposite, they want to keep control. So we don't get to have open devices, we get pushed to thin clients & locked boot loaders

While it's undeniable that MAFIAA et al have been heavily lobbying for that crap... the problem is, there are lots of bad actors out there as well.

I 'member the 00s/10s, I made good money cleaning up people's computers after they fell for the wrong porn or warez site. Driver signatures and Secure Boot killed entire classes of malware persistence.

[futuraperdita]

Is this not just "with freedom comes responsibility" applied to technology? Often the freedom to do something means that, when given that sovereignty and missing the requisite experience, that means you also end up with the freedom to harm yourself (whether through a misunderstanding of a danger or just simple error.)

Do we want to accept that as a potential consequence, or have someone else choose for us what consequences we are allowed to accept?

[thewebguyd]

> Do we want to accept that as a potential consequence, or have someone else choose for us what consequences we are allowed to accept?

Unfortunately, I think the old guard here is dying out and the majority want someone else choosing for them, which is why all the age verification & chat control-like bills have broad bipartisan support.

I'm in the "with freedom comes responsibility" camp. Obviously we should build secure systems, but our devices shouldn't be impenetrable by their own user. The "security" we are getting now is just security against the user having the freedom to do as they wish with their devices and software.

The cultural zeitgeist surrounding internet and computing freedom has changed to be in favor of more control and censorship. Not sure how we can stop it.