It’s hard to believe this question was asked in good faith. What did they write that makes you think they admitted to there being downsides?

The commenter started by saying they didn't see any downsides. Someone replied referring to specific downsides which impacted them (""use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"). Then the commenter said downsides don't matter because they can be used to argue against any change. That's a different argument than where they started.

> "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"

They replied to the comment which said this and wrote, "I see no downsides." I don’t see where they admitted to the downsides.

That's not the comment I replied to. I replied to the comment where they offered no argument for why someone else's downside was invalid, instead opting to say that it's better to not let downsides prevent action. The lack of argument implied they didn't have a response, which I sought to confirm.

Nope, no downsides.

You can believe whatever you want, but try not to impose it on others.

Likely they use Android, but are upset other people are using their devices wrong. So, to them, what downsides?

I mean… literally every complex judgement call in human history comes down to this answer; real life is mostly made of imperfect options with various tradeoffs.

"This is a complex judgment call, and I think forcing side loading is a reasonable conclusion in light of varied impacts" is a very different point of view than "I don't see any downsides."