>
People like you really think not purchasing the bad will fix stuff like this?Well yes, certainly. A market exists because it has buyers - without them, it withers. And a market exists because there is a need, that producers will ride. «if nobody bought the car», they would not produce it.
> If you don't buy any car at all, then you simply don't exist to them
So you misunderstood the proposed idea. It is not the individual that changes the market: a critical mass does. But the responsibility is individual.
> Cars aren't spying on you because people are voting for the spying
The statement is, "if people did not accept it it would not happen, and by financing it they accept it".
> If you want a car from the current market
If the «current market» only contained traps ("and you will give us rights to your grandson" etc.), why would one «want [an item] from the current market».
> Odds are they're all going to have some sort of surveillance-state bullshit, or the ones that don't have it are just going to be less-nice vehicles in general
This makes it sound like "some people will trade decency for items that they see as nicer". That is plain sinister.
> before Framework
There is a difference between suboptimal products - "optimal is not available yet" - and unacceptable products - "this service comes with jus primae noctis".
> do you still need a car anyway? Then I guess you vote in favor of a locked-down vehicle
Let us hope you won't, and find other solutions. But the problem is not about open-source: it is about reliability, security and privacy.
> for "voting" for every feature the car has. You voted for the car
By financing and simply purchasing a product you endorsed it, and with it all its implications. You are responsible. Sweatshop shoes? Responsible. You are given a faculty of awareness and an obligation to use it. Some implications are good, some are minor, some are immoral, some are bringer of dire social consequences.