I agree with this with one reservation: He says these three laws are sufficient. I believe they may be sufficient, but only time will tell if and how they may need to be extended. Experience with free software tells us that highly resourced exploiters can find ways to misuse FOSS to inflict harm on end-users, and thus Aral’s devices three laws may still be found vulnerable to such exploiters’ misuse.
(NOTE: I’ve been planning to write an article expounding very similar ideas, as I’ve found myself fighting against the systems built into and around the devices and software I use in an attempt to defend my own interests (particularly the longer term interests) and privacy against organizations whose purposes are in direct opposition to said interests and privacy.)
Just as an example of where I think Aral’s three laws are insufficient, I bought an iPad years ago (specifically because I wanted to be able to communicate with my grandson #A1). Over the years, I’ve never been thrilled with it. For one thing, everything goes through and is controlled by Apple. You cannot even get a decent browser for it, because every browser is merely a facade over the Safari engine.
But if you own an iDevice, your only hope to displace Apple’s control is to “jailbreak” it, which is _by design_ not easy.
Following Aral’s laws, iOS / iPadOS would be designed to obey me, not Apple, but what if I want to replace their software with my own? If it is my device, the choice of what software runs on it (with limited exceptions, such as the Wi-Fi drivers and embedded OS that keep the device in compliance with FCC rules about transmitting frequencies and power) must be mine alone, and subject to some means of ensuring that some intruder cannot easily simulate my approval to switch to their operating system, the switch should be easily performed by a normal individual who is willing to learn a little about the system and how it works.