It wouldn't have taken much more time for you to back your point with examples so we'd have some idea of what you're talking about. Please also explain the ideo

It wouldn't have taken much more time for you to back your point with examples so we'd have some idea of what you're talking about. Please also explain the ideology of how proprietary software is not worth fighting with a practical implementation and ethical discussion. Most of the time when people object to GNU or rms they fail to convey that they understand what software freedom is or how continually relevant software freedom is today. I'd bet that the majority of threads on these (overwhelmingly corporate) repeater sites are easily handled by stressing how important a user's software freedom is. Every DRM, proprietary software (Windows ignores user settings, this new device from $VENDOR spies on its users, etc.) is easily dismissed by getting into the same discussion about how software freedom would allow the user to alter the software, protect their privacy, treat their friends and neighbors better by sharing improved versions of the software, inspect and modify the software (or have someone they trust do it for them), and run the programs when they want (instead of losing access when a proprietor feels like ending "support"). Snowden readily credits free software for his success in leaking sensitive NSA documents to us all (docs which still make media stories years later). Three cheers for software freedom, rms, and Snowden! Posts like the parent post tell me sites like these are the thing losing relevance by showing how ineffective public moderation is and how unacceptable it is to dare to say something not echoed in corporate tech media.