@BowsacNoodle @TeaTootler >wheels
As if that's relevant to the point at all (it isn't). I could drive an all mechanical carbureted 1960s Chevy,

you could and then the ethical issues of software freedom are basically irrelevant to you (of course the ethical issues involved in fossil fuel burning would still apply)

> but I don't because I like the features and benefits of closed source fuel injected modern vehicles and public roads.

then that's a socially harmful, if (right now) individually beneficial thing. but it's a social problem generally - existing in north america really *does* require the use of such proprietary vehicles on some level (whether owned individually or publicly as part of public transport) -- this isn't an issue that you, specifically can do much about either way -- but seeing the problem clearly can help us work together to solve it. [Not sure what @Suiseiseki makes of this problem fully]. The longer this problem is left to fester the worse it will get, though.

Most people aren't aware of the problem that the central point of failure/proprietary auto-updates represent, though, they haven't thought through what it would really mean for someone who has control of that software to just kill be able to them. It's not something most people have thought of.