Can you provide an example of Slashdot censoring such advice?

Usually this takes two forms: actively downplaying anyone who questions a proprietary software narrative and noticing that the preponderance of comments come from the perspective of accepting proprietary software as legitimate. For the former, try looking for any links to pages on GNU.org's proprietary page where examples that challenge the legitimacy of proprietary control over the user are listed (in a highly organized way both by subject matter with commentary, and by organization). Posts with links to that page (or its subpages) are frequently down moderated and comments from other posters (who ostensibly don't use moderation points) never suggest why. For the latter, one recent example came up where Microsoft was said to "experiment with moving key Control Panel features" much to the chagrin of users who posted in that thread. One response makes a point which tries to engender the reader's sympathy for Microsoft, "Microsoft is in a no win situation, here.". There is no apparent awareness of Windows completely not respecting a user's software freedom. The way for Windows users to win their freedom is to not run Microsoft Windows or any other proprietary software where they are subject to a proprietor's control.

I'm not sure what an "establishment media repeater site" is.

Establishment media is media that frames an issue within the acceptable limits of debate so as to not challenge the wealthiest and most powerful people or organizations. In the context of published computer software that would mean articles which frame the debate around convenience and cost while ignoring software freedom. Proprietary control is assumed and one is supposed to debate which variant of control is appropriate among the available choices. Rarely the terms of debate go to misframing an issue as though software choice is paramount instead of a scam: arguing which is a better word processor, for instance—Microsoft Word or WordPerfect—satisfies choice (there's more than one of them) but ignores that both programs are proprietary and deny the user control over their computer.

It's not hard to see how the ills of proprietary software are ignored and software freedom is never mentioned: in a story about listening devices (Amazon's Alexa, Google's Home, etc.) listening in on people's discussions that are supposed to be confidential and the adverse effect for legal discussions, you don't find much in the way of systemic discussion which frames the debate around how many programs listen in on people and how little control users have over the devices they've surrounded themselves with. One poster asked "Why are you bringing those devices into your house in the first place?" and suggested the alternative of controlling home automation "via an app on your phone, tablet, or computer". The poster said "Siri [is] turned off on all of my devices". The irony is quite rich when one thinks structurally and considers that Siri is proprietary software running on a computer built to give the user only as much control as the proprietor wants them to have. Another poster made a claim beyond available evidence, "You can look at the Alexa app on your phone and see everything that it's transmitted back to the mother ship." which also isn't a structurally advisable view for the same reason as I mentioned before. If data is available the proprietor doesn't want the user to know about, it's not hard to accomplish this. And the real vetting for this spying won't come in the form of checking a page of clips provided by the proprietor. Such vetting will come from vetting complete corresponding source code to the relevant software in order to learn what is possible (not what a UI is designed to reveal) which is exactly what software freedom respects and what these systems deny.

And also maybe stop using the service entirely since they're complete liars and can't even do the one thing they're supposed to do.

Be careful on sites like this when you recommend something like that. /., Hacker News, and so many other establishment media repeater sites usually censor logical, reasonable, defensible advice that results in not handing over one's freedom to businesses. One could reach the same conclusion about, say, running Microsoft's proprietary software when it is revealed that Microsoft harangues users about installing Firefox or Chrome, displayed ads for Microsoft products and its partners' products, forced Windows 10 on Windows 7 and 8 users, blatantly disregarded user choice and privacy, and more. The reason Microsoft can exert such power over the user is that the software is proprietary (the software doesn't respect one's freedom to run, inspect, share, or modify the software). Users might think that a major point of having an operating system is to make the computer do what the user wants their computer to do, just as users of a no-log VPN service expect that that service won't keep revealing logs. Pointing out when businesses lie to their users is typically not received well among those who uncritically read establishment media.

Coding is a useful skill, one which can be picked up while also learning a far more practical language than Swift (such as the other languages the grandparent poster mentioned—Scheme, Python, Ruby, C, or some other language). Learning proprietor-specific stuff to gear your knowledge around what only a proprietor offers is not going to get you the well-rounded "coding" skill you approvingly referred to and such focus isn't likely to help you make money either. Most programming jobs won't revolve around such a narrow focus as Swift.

No, the users are in the no-win scenario because their software freedom (the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software) is not respected. In the free world users who don't like how upstream developers change things have options which include changing the code to what the users prefer, running older code without fear of timebombs, and even commercially obtaining support for code they want to keep running. Free software (software that respects a users' software freedom) puts the user in a better position to make choices that keep the user in control of their computer to the extent possible.

There is no "version of Windows you can own". Windows is proprietary software and Microsoft can (if/when they choose) make copies of Windows behave in ways we've already seen (forced "upgrades" switching to Windows 10, ignoring a user's privacy setting even at its most ostensibly privacy-preserving value and chatting on a network anyhow, and more) and ways we can't predict precisely because that is the nature of proprietary software (non-free software, user-subjugating software). Technically speaking, there's nothing preventing Microsoft from issuing an update that would make Windows 7 stop running on or after a certain time/date. They could bundle this code with an update that fixes something important to the user, effectively hiding it from the user and tricking the user into installing that code thinking they're getting a fix for something else (and thus tempting even offline Windows users into going online to fetch the update).

Microsoft could have already issued such code before. There is no way to tell if this has happened without doing the inspection work proprietary software prohibits us from legally doing. And in the event someone finds Windows does something users don't like there's no way to legally improve the code (again, proprietary software restrictions), or legally share those improvements with others, all because these are the restrictions of proprietary software. Proprietary software effectively holds users separate and helpless to have a "version of Windows you can own" and treat yourself and your community with respect and dignity.

"Stupid" is pretty strong but ignorant seems fair. Ignorant to think that the issues you identify are resolved by switching from Zoom to this other proprietary meeting system which, for all we know, is capable of doing the same thing. Ignorant for thinking that nationality plays a role here—these systems don't become trustworthy because they originate from one country instead of another. Software is deemed trustworthy by inspection, improvement, and we help other computer users by sharing. Thus software trustworthiness requires software freedom. It seems to me that Jitsi is worth evaluating. There are some related projects on Jitsi's entry in the Free Software Directory as well.

Is Microsoft taken over by Mozilla?

It's important not to ignore the larger more important issue here: software freedom. Mozilla, for all of the irritations Firefox may impose by default, delivers a free software web browser to us all. That software freedom is why Firefox has been the basis of other important web browsers such as the Tor Browser. Microsoft chiefly distributes proprietary software and Edge is no exception even if part of it comes from free software. Microsoft champions "open source" to the extent that developmental philosophy helps Microsoft secure power via proprietary software. Mozilla also offers the only other web engine people use right now which helps keep us away from the web monoculture we've seen in the past.

Software freedom is worthy of being celebrated for its own sake and Firefox continues to be a big step in the right direction. Even if other browsers were to shift their project to be built on some other free browser engine instead of Firefox's they'd still end up highlighting (via proof by existence) the importance of software freedom.

And yes, I have Siri turned off on all of my devices.

How can you be sure? The software running on the tracker (or the euphemistically named "cell phone" or "mobile phone") is proprietary. With proprietary software you're given the impression of control which the proprietor wants you to get. That's the nature of proprietary software.

In an interview with Rick Sanchez, Prof. Mohammad Marandi (Univ. of Tehran) said:

No, this is propaganda. Unfortunately Western countries not only have they been continuing their anti-Iranian propaganda that's been going on for decades during, but they've been continuing it, continuing this propaganda, during the rise of the Coronavirus in Iran, but also the Persian language outlets — BBC Persian, Deutsche Welle Persian, VOA [Voice of America] Persian, Iran International which is a Saudi channel — and other channels which have been owned or funded by Western channels or the Saudis, they're carrying out psychological warfare day and night against Iranians to create fear, they use misinformation, they use video clips that are unverified or distorted, and it's really disturbing. [...]

We don't know what the terms of licensing are for the parts of Windows 7 that Microsoft licensed from other copyright holders. To debate anything on that is pure speculation.

We do know that Microsoft wrote code which is part of Windows 7 and that code they could choose to license to the public under a free software license. But there's a terminological difference in the FSF's blog post on this subject which helps us understand the outcome we're currently seeing where Windows 7 remains proprietary software. Microsoft recently started saying that they "love open source" but the FSF requested "releasing Windows 7 under a free software license". Software freedom is not what open source stands for. The FSF's petition is looking out for the interests of users' software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software—but open source is a developmental methodology aiming to help businesses produce fewer bugs in a more efficient manner.

Microsoft "loves open source" because using other people's code (ideally licensed under a pushover license which allows proprietary derivatives) helps Microsoft's business and developmental ends. This "love" doesn't include looking out for or defending a user's software freedom. In fact it apparently means just the opposite: get more people to depend on Windows at a lower-level where spying and control are powerful such as getting more people to run their GNU/Linux systems atop a Microsoft VM. Liberating even portions of Windows 7 means an increased chance of dodging that control in a way that would increase compatibility with what Windows 7 users already have, thus incentivizing them to switch to running something they might not need to run atop a Microsoft-controlled lower layer. After all, spying and control are a lot less effective when users' software freedom is respected because any code the users don't like they have the freedom to remove or re-implement in a freedom-respecting way.

Something similar could be said of the nonfree (user-subjugating, proprietary) software which is required to use virtually any of the subscription media services. So you could end up paying with control over your computer (which likely holds sensitive data you don't want to hand over to the service) as well because you don't know what that service software does when it runs. No matter how technically skilled and willing you are to make it better (by your definition of better) you aren't allowed to inspect that software, modify that software, or share the software with anyone else to help your community use the service without handing over control over their computer to the service.

One doesn't need to give into this with traditional home media like DVDs and self-recorded media. This is clearly just a power and profit grab from the service provider, not something necessary to deliver the media to you in exchange for money. If what this story claims is true ("[...] a $10 fee will get you ad-free viewing and the whole kit-and-caboodle. But here's the thing: The execs at Comcast don't even want you to buy that service.") then the advertising is more valuable to them than the collective value of all subscriber fees. Perhaps this is not just about money and having a lot of data on users is such a valuable commodity which pays off in multiple ways.

If you decide to obtain ANY device that you 1) place in your home 2) that has a microphone and/or camera and 3) can be activated remotely to record audio/video in the cloud, you HAVE to assume that everything that happens in your home within earshot of the mic or view of the camera will be recorded and viewed by a human you don't know. You simply cannot assume you have any privacy in that space once one of those things is present.

This is made worse in the most common implementations because of user-subjugating proprietary software. For proprietary software-driven activity the user (no matter how technically skilled and willing) is prohibited from learning what even their own computer is doing. This certainly includes every cell phone (more properly called "tracker" because that is what it spends most of its time doing). And that includes services that send data to some third party.

But free software can help a little here: one could have a free software-driven voice control system that does all of the voice analysis locally, stores audio clips locally (or doesn't store them at all, at the user's choice), and leaves it up to the user to decide how much understanding and real control they wish to have over their own computer. One could have a free software calling program that only sends encrypted data over the connection and would allow the user to at least know their end of the conversation isn't being recorded on their computer. Free software can't solve all of the attendant privacy problems (some are outside the scope of software freedom) but free software can help.

People would like a more private communication system which could be shown to be more private. Businesses currently don't deliver this in any verifiable way all know that their customers want this—Apple, for example, is selling their proprietary software-driven iThings on the basis of privacy protection which we can't verify (and which might well turn out to be not privacy-respecting). If privacy concerns were of no value (as some have tried to convince us here, even post-Snowden revelations) there would be no point in Apple running such an ad campaign or having CEO Tim Cook give reassurances that Apple cares about its users interest in privacy.

Very recently the Inspector Generalâ(TM)s Report on 2016 FBI Spying revealed a scandal of historic magnitude exposing not only the FBI but the media (namely corporate media which publishes stories that are often uncritically repeated on sites like /.). The language of "authoritarian thugs" is light going given the FBI's record.

This is a test case not just for Apple but for the public: will the public stand in defense of a software proprietor whose software is unavailable for inspection, improvement, and sharing (which means they're standing with an organization that keeps secrets from them, standing for something they aren't allowed to fully understand no matter how technically capable and willing they are to understand such software)? Or does the public respectfully acknowledge the high stakes involved in this case and continue to insist that their civil liberties be respected by all involved? Perhaps the best time to "take seriously" the very real concerns of one's own civil liberties is when the situation is so life-threatening.

Apple has long stated that *THERE IS NO BACK DOOR* and they are not interested in building one.

A software proprietor is telling you that but that only means only they know if there is a backdoor or not. After all, Apple didn't tell you that iTunes had a remotely-exploitable security hole which Apple left unfixed for 3 years after being informed about the problem. And their "interest" in building one is not very interesting as that comes down to compliance with local law.

This also points to why you should want and do need free software firmware (software running on a computer other than your system's main CPU). You deserve control over all of the computers you own and that includes any computers inside speakers too. This point has nothing to do with how technical you are or how willing you are to edit computer software. This has to do with looking out for your own equipment's longevity, the environment (best to keep using perfectly usable equipment rather than let even parts of it become trash), and retain as much control over your own life as you can.