Asking users to make informed decisions about infosec is something from the Windows XP era. Ever since then it’s become clear that platforms will have to be opinionated about their security choices.
For instance allowing users to side-load apps also allows carriers to install crapware and certain governments to mandate monitoring apps. Platform designers need to figure out if that’s worth it — I’m sure different people will reach different conclusions.
Government, in an ideal scenario, takes care of situations where the individual person is likely to make a bad choice and screw themselves over because the ability to understand the problem domain is so much work that they are unlikely to make the effort.
This whole conversation in this thread is basically about the nanny-state vs freedom to make your own choices, even if they're more than likely to end up in a bad situation for the end user.
I think everyone is constantly trying to thread the needle on that tension in a way that is acceptable to the broader culture.
What difference is there, in practice? The world is getting more complicated every day. The amount of information being created in a single day is more than a person could consume in a lifetime.
At some point we should ask ourselves whether it's possible for anyone to have a fully informed opinion on every issue that could ever effect them.