andromedusgalacticus

From the text you replied to:

Admittedly, this isn’t always the case

I believe you're looking for a debate, where I was wanting discussion. Take care.

I love open source in an ethical sense, and I use it to meet all of my media and storage needs. Even my operating system is open source. However, as a consumer, I also value having the best possible experience. Companies can provide better and more refined experiences in many ways, often by leveraging their deep pockets.

I don't mind paying for services that offer great value or save me time. The problem that most companies face, though, is that I expect them to respect both me and my privacy.

If we were to eliminate privacy infringements from proprietary software and make it open source, it would often become best-in-class within the open source community (e.g., Photoshop, Microsoft Office, etc.). Admittedly, this isn't always the case, but all of this is to say that there can be arguments in favor of providing a service that respects the end user and their privacy, which warrants further discussion.

If it wasn't Meta, I would almost be okay with this. If I genuinely believed that my privacy was being preserved, I think it'd be a fair trade.

Something worth mentioning is that android auto will not work for graphene. I was so on board until that. It’s understandable why that’s the case though.

What an interesting phrase. I've never heard that one before. Perfectly sums up less elegant forms of phrasing it.