Sure, I can get behind that statement for certain things that we consider essential to a person's dignity and safety. Demanding access to Gmail or Facebook doesn't sound like it.

> Demanding access to Gmail or Facebook doesn't sound like it.

I would argue that Gmail (or at least some kind of email service) is actually a necessity for modern life -- and if "access" includes sending emails to @gmail.com without being black-holed into the spam folder then I would argue it is one of the most essential digital rights these days. For most of the public, no access to Gmail would make it impossible to get a job, use most online services, or communicate with most people. Arguably this is a right more people exercise every day than some fundamental human rights (like the right to a fair trial -- most people are never a party to a criminal trial).

Facebook is somewhat less relevant than it was a decade or two ago, but if you include all of the services under the Facebook umbrella (Instagram and WhatsApp) then I think there is an argument it is would also inch close to that line. I remember it being incredibly difficult to attend events and interact socially with classmates without having a Facebook account when I was in university ~10 years ago.

(All of that being said, I don't necessarily think this is the key issue here.)

The ability to run our own software in all contexts is absolutely essential for our dignity and safety.

It is the only thing that allows us the chance to resist their surveillance capitalism. Being surveilled and having algorithms extract value out of us is exploitation which absolutely goes against basic human dignity. It also creates the potential for information leaks which are safety risks.

Think about it. The only thing that separates corporate software from literal malware is a huge terms of service document filled with legal boilerplate that nobody actually reads. Everybody theoretically "agrees" to this stuff.