Purchasing/Possessing Computers Isn't the Same as Controlling Computers
Making computers work for their users isn't simple. It's getting harder over time. In the more distant past computers were not so accessible (few had computers or had any access to computers, anywhere!), but those computers were programmable and computer code was shared without restrictions (before copyrights became applicable to code or computer programs or schematics thereof).
We just happen to live a couple of miles away from the home of the world's first programmable computer (known as the "Baby"). I used to live literally across the road from it - or its former location - for a period or 7+ years. I used to work meters away from it for nearly half a decade in the Kilburn Building.
The idea that users can and should control their computers isn't outlandish. Owning the computers is another matter because early computers were not owned by their users but by large institutions. But nowadays, even purchasing or "owning" one's computers does not imply controlling these.
That's a problem.
Let's strive to put computers back under the control of their users, no matter who purchased these (usually the users).
In case it's not already obvious, these statements also apply to tablets, phones and so on.
For society to collectively control its direction it needs to be able to control the tools. Centralisation ("cloud", chatbots etc.) is a form of feudalism because few people tell everybody what files one can have, what to think, and even what to "say". █