People often misuse freedom. The answer to that is not to take freedom away, but to educate people on how to use their freedom, and only restrict those who have proven to be unable to handle it. Let's say your argument, that clueless users getting infected are an externality upon everyone else and thus they need to be locked down for everyone's good, is accurate (though I don't think it is). In that case, why should the majority of intelligent people be made to suffer because a minority can't handle the freedom? No, in that case the correct thing to do is to have a mechanism by which we identify people who are hurting others, and restrict them. Nobody would countenance the idea that because some people are irresponsible drivers, cars must therefore be unavailable and everyone pushed into using public transit. But that is the exact same logic people try to use to crack down on freedom of use for computers, even though they are nowhere near as dangerous as a car.
> I really abhor "technical libertarians"...
Well, I abhor those who try to take freedom away from people. So the feeling is mutual I guess.
Why as an Apple user in the UK am I considered too dumb to use a 3rd party app store but if I were 30 miles away in France I would be considered intelligent enough to cope? Because this was never about my safety. It was about their 30% as correctly supposed above.
Why in the UK Billy is considered a civil engineer but if he were 30 miles away in France it would be considered illegal for him to sign off on a bridge design? Different places arrived at different consensuses.
Either that or Apple don't want to lose their 30% until they are forced to, one jurisdiction at a time. I guess we all need to make our own inference as to which is more likely.
> I really abhor "technical libertarians"...
Well, I abhor those who try to take freedom away from people. So the feeling is mutual I guess.