>Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal.

I wish to ask you not to portrait reasonable expectations of certain freedoms as some kind of an absolute. It is reasonable to expect your computer to be under your full control and not under control of someone else.

Freedom isn't the answer? Then what we are talking about? You have certain freedom of controlling your own mind and your own body. Freedom isn't the answer there too? The way I see it computer is becoming extension of your mind/body and as such owner should have at least the same level of control over it.

>Where do you draw the line?

It is unclear for me from your post whether you are talking about 'line respecting freedom' or 'line acceptable at the moment because freedom is 80s dream and irrelevant now because we've learned to accept any shit by calling it progress' Let's assume it's the first one because the second one I think you've described.

The question about where you draw the line is a very hard one and I do not think I can or should answer it alone. Discussion is required to define it.

In short it is something along the lines I've described already - every part of the computer design should be transparent and open for inspection to call it a freedom respecting solution.

>Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips?
Basically all answers there are Yes.
Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention.

I think your question implies that there is one line to draw. If so then it is the one I've described above but I think it is better to draw a few lines with levels of freedom provided and mark every computer produced accordingly.

>Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.

Do they? Wouldn't you say that Apple have a full control over their Mac M1? You are working with it so you should know exactly the answer to that question. With all their compromises the main door is under their full control and they hold they key to themselves, correct me if I am wrong.

If you ask today in practical terms what is a reasonable line to draw, let's draw it where Apple have done it except the key should be in the hands of the owner, not Apple. How about that? Would it satisfy? Actually you are the first one to ask about a proper line to draw but you should be honest about. You should be able to say "yes, this computer is under my full control" just like now Apple can say it's under their control and they guard it very carefully so perhaps they have figured where the line is.