RMS's line of thinking here is an example of coming up with a rule (i.e. use Free/Libre software on your computer) that approximates the right thing to do to ac

RMS's line of thinking here is an example of coming up with a rule (i.e. use Free/Libre software on your computer) that approximates the right thing to do to achieve a certain outcome (maintain control of your computing and avoid anti-features / being exploited by other people), and then applying that rule beyond where the original approximation was valid, to the extent that you are actually doing worse in terms of your original outcome. I think the rational ordering will normally be: FLOSS code, your server > Non-free code, your server > Unknown code, someone else's server RMS seems to prefer: FLOSS code, your server > Unknown code, someone else's server > Non-free code, your server But unknown code on someone else's server can generally do far more in terms of anti-features than non-free code on your server. You can at least see how much data is being exfiltrated; they still have to worry about people reverse engineering the code and ruining their reputation if they do something too bad; you at least have the option to reverse engineer the data format or network protocol and replace their code with something you completely understand and control. If the data is on their server, you give up a tremendous amount of control. I think some of the stuff RMS writes can serve as a cautionary tale about not letting rational heuristics that start with good intentions become dogma (as can the development of many religions which also probably started with good intentions) - hyperbolic thinking and using words like evil and wrong to describe something you think should be avoided always seems to lead to things getting taken too far.