No, it's about implementation. Implementation is implementation. If you want to discuss software in terms of principle we're going to have a very short conversation. "You, as a user get no choice" because "they are taking away your control of your devices" is a meaningless statement.

I am arguing that yeah, there are scenarios where limiting the ability to install or run unsigned software at the user level makes perfect sense. Honestly, it may make sense most of the time. The mirage that it does not comes from mostly spending time in home computers where the only user is also the person acting as an admin.

Do I feel that most, if not all, devices should allow full access to a consenting user that understands they are very likely about to nuke their thing? Yeah, sure! It's basic right to repair. But pretending that automating maintenance tasks or adding access restrictions is a fundamental, ideological problem is just... not how this works.

I think the change Google has announced is unacceptable. Just not for the reasons you're describing and certainly not in the way you're describing them. The difference is very important, because the last thing we need is a roaming mob of online dilettantes arguing that any restriction to access is a betrayal of fundamental freedoms.

Which, frankly, is how we ended up with the dumb notion that there's no reason why you wouldn't want your home computer updating itself every time you reboot it. Which in turn has nothing to do with the ability to not do that if the OS is running on something that is NOT a home computer where somebody needs to have manual control over what changes and when.