I don't think anyone is arguing that they want app developers to break the law, but rather that Google must not take away the device owner's choice to install any app he so chooses. But even to the extent that does involve lawbreaking... yes, that's the price you have to pay for freedom. You cannot give people freedom without some people misusing it to do bad things, but that does not mean freedom should therefore be abrogated. In the extreme, you could have a very safe society without any crimes if you locked every citizen inside a small cell that they couldn't leave. But nobody, not even the most ardent tough on crime advocates, would contend that such a trade would be worth it. We all agree that some amount of criminal activity must be tolerated for the sake of living freely, then... the only question is where each person thinks that line should be drawn.

>but rather that Google must not take away the device owner's choice to install any app he so chooses.

This is fair to make and a better strategy. My comment was about calling out the messaging or strategy that the author went with. Choosing an idea of people should be able to decide the apps they are able to run is more agreeable of a message than a message of "think about developers who want to avoid consequences of breaking the law." The latter is an antisocial message that I do not think is as agreeable.

>We all agree that some amount of criminal activity must be tolerated

I don't agree with that. Especially with the upcoming rise of AI law enforcement. Much more freedom than a cell can be given while maintaining effective law enforcement.