It's not silly hypothetical there have already been devices that used secure boot to lock out alternative OS and allowing third parties a say in what software is run is literally the entire point of remote attestation.

The last sentence is particularly disappointing. The article's analysis is correct and not particularly complicated it stands on its own regardless of whatever bias you possess.

Let's not throw words like 'bias' around when linking to Stallman.

> allowing third parties a say in what software is run is literally the entire point of remote attestation

No it isn't.

We're clearly of two very different minds, there's no way we're finding common ground on this, and I've already done the work of explaining to many people what TPM technology is, so I feel like I've done my part.