I agree with this take, but my view is that it is one step detached from the root cause. The right to property is fundamental and inalienable. A person who can't own things isn't free, they have no claim on liberty.

That said, service providers, corporations and the like should be allowed one remedy: They can refuse future services and business to anyone if that person violates whatever b.s. rule they came up with.

However, the government (any government) has no authority to police post-ownership activity in a manner that deprives the owner of their property rights. In other words, they can say "You can't own an AK-47" or "You can't generate sound over certain dB" , but they can't say "You can't shoot your AK-47 on your property, even if it pauses no risk of harm to others, but you can own it", and they can't say "You can't use your speaker at maximum volume" (they can police the sound you generate but not the usage of your property, if the speaker passes the legal threshold then the speaker isn't relevant, the sound generated is).

This also applies to free (not commercial) sharing of property (copyright laws are fundamentally invalid).

The problem is, I am talking logic and reason which doesn't translate well into real-world scenarios. In the real world, the guys with the biggest guns make up random rules and pretend it is just and valid.

The reason I'm stating all this, is in the hopes that I can convince anyone who reads this and maybe if enough of us agree, some day democracy might work and laws can change.

The government can prevent ownership of things. It cannot however pass laws that dicate you can come into possesion of things and by all reason it is your property, but as a matter of technicality it can't be considered property and is subject to arbitrary usage laws by the government or rules by third-parties.

That said (I promise, my last one!), access to network services is special. If someone made some software where to function it requires some network service, and they came up with random rules on the network service side, then that is also their right, since that service is on their property. The remedy people have for this is to avoid that service. And if that service is the only one of its kind and using it is required, then the government has a natural obligation to protect the public against monopolies.

I had a hole other post/thread that got negative feedback and some interesting discussion about Google, Android and their sideloading policies. If you glean anything from this post of mine, please let it be that I am advocating for solving of the root causes of these problems. It is all too easy to be reactionary and fall into these rage-baiting events. Solving root causes is never easy, but good solutions are often simple. If reasonable minds can have a healthy discourse to find these solutions then many problems are solved, instead of playing whack-a-mole forever.