"Freedom or persistent compromise" depending on whether it's the rightful owner or an attacker using the exploit. The most user-hostile part is forcing users to choose between accepting an OEM locked down platform, or running an open platform that an attacker can permanently lock down.

I'd happily pick the third option of running a platform locked down by me, the hardware purchaser, if it were ever made available to the general market. I have absolutely no objection to locked down hardware or DRM-like protections so long as the devices and software I'm using and installing obey me and only me.

I think DRM means that you cannot control the platform completely.

Agreed, but I wasn't sure how to describe software that attempts to tightly restrict user actions, protect content streams, etc other than as DRM-like. Perhaps just "secure"? Someone controls the platform, and others (users, guests, adversaries, whoever) don't - I just want to be that someone if it's my device.

> The most user-hostile part is forcing users to choose between accepting an OEM locked down platform, or running an open platform that an attacker can permanently lock down.

That is flawed logic. The article demonstrates that the OEM version is insecure. Why would you assume that the open version would be more vulnerable to attackers?