This argument keeps being repeated, and it's basically just "if you don't like it, find a different platform". Do you think that's how our rights should be preserved, by hopping to places and platforms that respect our rights?

Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have changed and now they need to install apps that have not been approved by Apple. Wouldn't the solution be to offer people that need to live with their right to sideload apps on their devices an escape hatch, instead of telling them to change platforms?

Why would you buy a device where much of the value it provides is derived from its walled garden, then complain about the walls around the garden?

People can have devices without explicitly choosing them, or understanding the consequences if they get to have a choice, and the rights of those people are needlessly restricted.

> are needlessly restricted.

Its equally correct to say, "the rights of those people are needfully restricted."

If people cannot choose their devices, or are miss-informed that is a big issue and should not be tolerated. Meanwhile, allowing Apple to build an amazing, curated customer experience for me is why I choose Apple's ecosystem for me and my family. I don't want my parents or future children getting misled into downloading malware, or berated by ads, or giving out their credit cards to an un-trusted application disguised as "verified by Apple".

The walled garden is a feature, with tradeoffs. Not different from my shower head or fridge making feature based tradeoffs. If you don't like the energy bills for your washing machine, suing or regulating the company to improve it isn't the right strategy. Just buy a different brand that matches your needs.

If you want sideloading on iOS (beyond what the web offers), buy an Android.

> simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time

What about the users who lacked the important knowledge that the apps they downloaded had deceptive advertising, or malware?

Are you arguing that because of the current possibility to install apps from third-party sources that might turn out to be malware, Windows should only allow installing apps from the Windows Store?

Should we no longer be able to run software that has not received third-party approval?

No, I am not arguing any of those things. Users should be able to sideload apps if they wish to enable sideloading and are fully cognizant of the risks. However, users who wish to use the official installation channel should be protected from malicious behaviours. This is why the official distribution channels have rules which block behaviour very open to malicious gaming, such as in-app links, which is what the OP is about. My argument is that the OP author should not be complaining about being kicked out of the official channel for violating the established rules.

I agree that Apple should be free to make their own rules on the App Store, but because of the lack of sideloading, some of the rules they enforce eliminate legitimate apps from the iOS platform, not just malware, and they can destroy businesses. OP is complaining about App Store rules because that's the only distribution platform for apps on iOS, but I agree that they should instead argue for the possibility of sideloading.