If one limits their scope to the nutrients or taste of food on their plate then they wouldn’t consider the well-being of other conscious creatures. Only considering system requirements to complete an activity misses out the freedom of the user(s), apparently.

It is a given that humans suffer due to the unjust power that proprietary software gives devs over their user’s computing. Even the best dev does not the the willpower to always resist the temptation to use that power at the expense of the users. Many devs are oblivious they are doing anything wrong and many are malicious/anti-consumer.

There is also the impact it’s use and promotion has on others - money/feedback/promotion given to the non-free projects are boons not given to the freedom-respecting projects. I am better off when others start to move away from proprietary software.

I’m sure that’s correct. Richard Stallman would be a good example of that, sadly. I doubt anything as negative has been said in this thread, or site. Seems more like people feel attacked when free software advocates point out uncomfortable issues. Like how people get annoyed with vegans talking about animal cruelty (I eat meat, saying that to avoid theonejoke).

To continue the metaphor: a partner can have many alluring qualities (income, hobbies, looks) but what does that matter if the relationship is abusive? Leaving (and dating someone “worse”) can be more difficult that just staying in the relationship, but the priority should be clear.

If people choose not to use software that’s open source because of the way people talk on some thread… were they intellectually thinking about their own best interests? It’s like no longer enjoying a show because some fans did something cridge - anything popular enough will have weirdos (from someone’s perspective).

What’s it from?

You mean a morally “right” solution? 😇

2. Open source has high immunity to devs making changes at the expense of user for their benefit because anti-features can be removed. Recommending another proprietary alternative here would be like saying they aught to leave an abusive partner but then recommend someone with the same red flags.

Saying “non-free” instead of “proprietary” better explains there is an issue to readers unfamiliar with software freedom, I suppose.