> in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device This points to what I mentioned above: this type of rhetorical device has led

> in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device This points to what I mentioned above: this type of rhetorical device has led to things becoming tangibly worse in our society. That alone is enough reason to dismiss it. (I forgot to mention Chesterton's Fence in my previous comment: https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/ https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/) Besides, the commenter offered a particular "simple" solution: "One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation." It's not the word "simple" that motivated me to respond, it's that it's also an idea that is a non-starter from a practical perspective. Again, there's nothing new I can add as to why: it's all out there already. See, e.g., https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys... (this is focused specifically on sideloading apps and not the OS itself, but the logic is still applicable) and https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-security-guide.pdf https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec... (pages 5 and 6 set the context).