The vast majority of people do not care at all for technological autonomy, either because they don’t know about the implications or because they know and don’t care because it has very intangible effects over their life. Therefore they don’t make decisions taking into account technological autonomy or privacy.

Oh I am well aware convincing the average person that privacy is important is as impossible as trying to argue for the validity of the second amendment with soccer moms in the US. That's why I posted this in a privacy community, with privacy-conscious individuals.

FOSS, on a political level, as a movement, it is dead. What we observe is the corpse, being a resource for value extraction processes by corporate and military organizations. The space of conflict over technology today is somewhere else: tech unionization, the post-FOSS movement, tech cooperativism, direct sabotage, public regulation. FOSS has been subsumed by the system.

The whole open source vs foss thing is just beurocracy by the FSF and the OSI as I see it, both run by ideologically obsessed fools. Each has their own specific definition of what is free, when in actuality licenses are merely a tool, and nothing more. Sometimes an anti-commercial license is useful for large projects like games, sometimes permissive licenses are good for highly-portable libraries and the like. I don't know what usecase the GPL would be useful for, but maybe you can figure that out, and then ask Stallman if it's cool that the GPL is used to platform the largest proprietary OS on the planet (proprietary vendor android distributions) and ask how that helps promote software freedom. Open source is still open source, regardless of if it's made by a corporation, and if a corporation wants to footgun themselves so hard to release their code under MIT, that's a win as I see it. I'm sure FOSS is dying in the same way Netcraft confirmed BSD has been dying for the past several decades. FUD.