Money shapes this world. It's not the voting booth where we voice our will, but where we spend our money.

Many companies don't consider libre and open components economically relevant. If that changed, they would cater to that segment.

If a company that offers more open devices than others is economically successful, then that is proof that there is economic relevance to this aspect.

Now, is the Librem5 a step into the right direction? If it is, I think it should be supported by all those that want a RYF-certified device.

I suppose I can understand this reasoning a bit, but it seems a little counter intuitive to me. There is literally no alternative. And without efforts like this it's unlikely there would ever be something that is RYF compliant. Accomplishing something like RYF certification requires work, money, and someone willing to try to accomplish it. There is someone that is willing to invest work to at least attempt to accomplish it, but they need money. Why not support them in their quest for this?

Suppose that I’m a vegetarian, but I really like sausage (maybe I acquired the taste before becoming vegetarian), but there are, for some reason, no makers of vegetarian sausages. Should I then accept whatever sausage is available which has the least amount of meat in it? Of course not; I’ll simply go without sausage.

Even if a sausage maker came along and tried to attract the vegetarian buyers with a new kind of sausage which had no meat in it, just a little bit of gelatin in it. They say they can’t currently make vegetarian sausage without any gelatin in it, but they’re working on it. Should I “support” them and buy the sausage with gelatin in it anyway? Of course not; I’m a vegetarian; gelatin means it’s off the table.

(I’m not necessarily really a vegetarian, of course; it’s just an analogy.)

I don't think that analogy is a fair comparison to make because it doesn't fairly portray that Purism doesn't have a choice in this. It is the upstream manufacturers who control this area, and they will have no reason at all to make something which is RYF approved unless someone big enough is pushing for it.

So to make this comparison more apt, it's more like a sausage maker who is focused on making vegetarian sausage. Now, it just so happens that they'd also love to make these sausages vegan sausages, but the suppliers of the contents of the sausage just don't make a "meat" which is vegan because literally no one with any power has asked for it before. If no one buys their sausages there is literally no chance of a vegan sausage being produced because there is just no reason for it.

Even that isn't really an apt comparison because it doesn't correctly portray the ubiquity of cell phones. I guess instead of a sausage maker it would be something more like "a producer of food", where there is literally no vegan food anywhere. So what I don't understand in all this is why someone who wants an RYF certified cell phone would choose not to support the one group even attempting such a thing. You don't even need to eat the sausage or use the phone in this case either, they just need the support.

This analogy is not good, because for a vegetarian there are other easy-obtainable things to eat. On the other side, in the case of handheld portals into the digital world, we do not have easy-obtainable alternatives.

Besides this weakness, the analogy relies on fanatism. One can easily become nearly vegan and have virtually all of the benefits while not needing to be totalitarian nor fanatic.

What phone are you using currently?

(I’ll answer about my thoughts and opinions are instead of what I am actually using.) I would not be adverse to using a “feature phone” – i.e. a non-updateable non-smartphone. It’s hard coded; no one can affect the software in it, so it would be OK if I can’t either. Of course a free (RYF-certified) phone would have much better features (including inspectable privacy guarantees), which is why I’m considering such a thing.

How do you know the software can't be affected remotely, considering the baseband processor?

I can’t know that, which is why I wrote “Of course a free (RYF-certified) phone would have much better features (including inspectable privacy guarantees), which is why I’m considering such a thing.”