[JCattheATM]

From your first link the top comment says:

> I do not have a particularly strong trust for the (modern) FSF, so their validation adds nothing, IMHO,

Most upvoted reply says:

> having FSF validation doesn't prove anything but rather may be detrimental,

The second link no one is discussing the FSF certification at all, one guy mentioned it in passing and every other hit for 'fsf' is from your username.

Third link only hits for 'fsf' are from your username.

Final link 'fsf' returns no hits.

I think you are conflating interest in an open source and/or free phone with something FSF approved. My claim above was that most people don't care about an FSF approved phone, and your links here don't show otherwise.

I agree there is an interest in an open alternative to Android/iPhone, but that doesn't require FSF approval.

[fsflover]

> The original comment said "We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device"

FSF certification is just one way to indicate freedom. People may not care about it but they do care about freedom.

[JCattheATM]

FSF has a very strict idea about what constitutes freedom which many people that care about freedom do not share. Hence, people can care about freedom, and not care about FSF certifications or even opinions.

[fsflover]

It's true. And you shifted the discussion from general freedom to FSF-certification. I used the latter as just example of how to define freedom and not as the only benefit of Librem 5. People certainly care about freedoms it can provide.

[JCattheATM]

I didn't shift the discussion. You asked why people were not caring about FSF-endorsed operating systems for phones. I said because people don't care about FSF endorsements.

You kept trying to defend that, if you had clarified earlier and asked why people were ignoring FLOSS phones, my response would have been different.