If those are the only two points you disagree with, what are the points you agree with?

The intent of software freedom is to ensure the 4 freedoms for the users. If you waive those user freedoms because a piece of software is popular, how does that make it "free" from the perspective of the user?

It is very true that we can give more freedom to impose restrictions on users of software, but that's just blatantly missing the point. I can completely understand that it is what you and many other people want, but calling it "true freedom" in the same breath where you espouse to agree with most of RMS's principles is disingenuous.

I don't mean to be as harsh as I'm sure this sounds. Many people learn about free software through open source. They see the benefits of open source processes. They enjoy the benefits that free software brings them through these open source projects. However, I suspect that many (possibly including yourself) don't really understand what software freedom is or why it is important. This is why (I imagine) that RMS refuses to align with the Open Source movement, even though they are fighting the same battles 90% of the time. He hopes to help people understand why software freedom is important and that is his only goal.

To be fair, I think there is a gradient of suckiness to software that is not free. I am playing Dwarf Fortress a lot lately, which is unusual for me because I have barely any non-free software on my machine. However I can identify with the authors of DF who clearly see their code as a work of public art. It sucks that I can't participate fully in that work, but it only sucks a little bit if I'm honest. I am free to write my own interpretation of that art any time I feel like it.

We can contrast that to embedded software that is in medical devices. Although it is an issue that has been going on for some time, it has gotten some press lately. Imagine a pace maker which has remote access and whose software is closed. People's lives are at stake and they can't even review the software, let alone fix security bugs. Clearly this sucks very much beyond what we normally mean by "sucks". (An exploit exists that allows remote people to kill you. Ouch).

Personally, I am not really of the opinion that all software must inherently be free, but there is a significant problem. It seems pretty clear to me that some software must be free and I think we should have laws in place to ensure it. But where do we draw the line?

There is a really sharp gradient with our suckiness level. Even when entities that control non-free software are good actors, they can easily sell the software to people who are not. Politics and policies can change. Would you really like to be a political dissident in Saudi Arabia with a Blackberry phone? Do you really trust so much that things like that can't happen where you live? Even with Pokemon Go? (tracking you everywhere you go...)

I'm not a free software activist (not even in my spare time), though I very much believe in what people like RMS are doing. I've written my fair share of non-free software (and even signed contracts which forbade me from writing free software for many years!) Even these days, while I refuse to write proprietary software, I simply hand over my copyright to my employers and I have no way to stop them from putting whatever license they want on the software. One day I hope it won't be such a big issue because most people will understand software freedom and the advantages it brings to society. We've already come such a long way (with very little help from me, unfortunately).

I hope that helps to shine light on a different way of looking at the issue.