@nprofile1q... to be fair, I do think it's reasonable to reexamine old assumptions about how to improve the world and ask if older strategies are still fit for purpose. Given that the technological landscape is only become more overtly and covertly hostile, I can appreciate the desire to want to 'up the game' when it comes to attempting to reverse course or mitigate damage.
In another light, I think it is equally damaging to FOSS if nobody wants to participate because they feel the karmic consequences are net negative due to dis-proportionally benefiting murderous oligarchs. While I agree with you that Free Software (and hardware) does have a right to be a movement without tackling broader issues, there's always going to be friction there. For example, many people don't quite understand that "Free Software" isn't the same as the software being wholly good in itself. For example, it would be trivial for someone to build a FOSS gambling suite that destroys life. It's still fully-free, but at that point does it matter?
But back to the main point, while I wholeheartedly agree with your stance I think the people you're arguing with are trying to wrestle with a real problem. FOSS/H is great, but it's not a religion, it's not the guiding force people base their lives on. This seems to be a problem in many areas (like Free Speech for example) where people abandon the principle the moment more ...carnal concerns come to the forefront.
I would definitely like to have good answers, but I guess what I'm saying is that there are also downsides to not addressing the problems raised by those people. I don't think they're actually in favor of a proprietary model, there just isn't a comforting (generally accepted) explanation for why Free Software actually does work towards empowering people rather than enabling tyrants and abusers. You see much of the same questions brought up in the privacy space as a whole.
