It's less about access control and more about corporate behavior control. When you ask a contractor to come fix something about your home, you don't have to clarify to them that they shouldn't also be snooping around the bedroom drawers and taking pictures to be stored somewhere.

You shouldn't have to go and create zero-trust environments for things to operate in because tech companies can't be trusted to be honest and transparent about how they handle your data. It should be a given that they're up-front about what they do with it within the various terms and licenses, and easy to enforce those terms.

Those that cannot behave in such a way should get exactly zero of your business, even if the product is free and you can set up ways to block any sort of intrusions.

This is kinda beside the point and this whole thread may be wiped when dang wakes up and notices the AI slop article we're commending under, but your reply is thought provoking so I'll attempt a response anyway;

I'm sure you're far more experienced than I with basically every aspect of this discussion, but I'd argue that's given you a blindspot, here. I'll hit some specifics below, but the headline is that you're effectively taking a stand against Eternal September II -- a goal that I hope we can all agree would be quixotically antisocial, given what followed the first one!

  we arguably do not want FLOSS to "win" over OSS

I think(/hope) that fellow FLOSS proponents would passionately disagree. FLOSS isn't a brand of chatroom, nor even merely a community: it's an ethos regarding labor, property, and liberty. Demanding that all users of your software are also activists for your particular take on intellectual property is clearly a doomed undertaking for anything beyond a toy or library, anyway.

Didn't you get into this stuff to change the world? To liberate the oppressed, undereducated, and forgotten with the radical power of the information superhighway? Cause it reads here like you're more motivated by selfishness (not wanting to bother talking to people with less expertise than you) and resentment. On that note...

  They want that. They do it themselves all the time.

Here you equate "non-hacker people" with software engineers you don't agree with, it seems. You're ofc welcome to think companies X Y & Z produce "miserable-ness", but as absurd as it sounds, it sure seems like you've forgotten the fact that some users are not developers. Many, in fact! Over 99%, even!

Less confrontationally; my mom is in her late 60s, and is pretty computer-literate for her age after decades of knowledge work. Surely you'd agree that she's not, like, evil for using OSX, iOS, GMail, Word, etc.? That she didn't chose those things because of a philosophical commitment to defending IP laws, but rather because of structural reasons? Even if she were pro-IP, wouldn't we want to win good, well-meaning people to our side?

  So let them have the "Open" prefix. It's just words, anyway.

I do agree with this still, but as a philosopher I just have to say that everything is just words. It's language games, in fact! Which is why I simply had to reply.

I hope none of the above was rude; I'm trying hard to keep my passion for this topic from pushing me past HN guidelines :)