Look, the kid was a hero, but this is also patently false.
He was not sentenced to 35 years. The trial hadn't started. 35 years was the maximum possible sentence. He was given a plea deal for 6 months that he rejected.
We don't need to spin lies to make his story more tragic than it already is.
It's almost like tying together feature updates with security updates was a deliberate choice by tech companies so that they could tell users shit exactly like this.
How can there be any real market choices when software literally tells users "for your own safety, you must abandon the things you want, and take the things we give you". How can consumers influence the direction of the product if they never have the option to decline that direction?