> Users have the right to subvert software and platform restrictions that would force them to consume content that they do not wish to see, and to teach other people how to subvert these restrictions. Users have the right to distribute software that circumvent technological restrictions for the purposes of personal content filtering.

How about "Users have the right to not use software that forces [...]"? I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that people agree to a ToS and then have a right to abuse the platform. Seems like that could lead to an inconsiderate/unsafe/unfair place for other people and stakeholders in that platform. I understand that anyone can do whatever they want whenever they wish and that it's up to the platform to battle "subversion" and misuse – but I don't believe it should be an indoctrinated imperative.

This applies to most of what is found in "Right to Modify". I think there's truly a legal nuance to who owns what (especially when a lot of folks are currently renting their phones from their device manufacturers or service providers).

The sentiment seems to elevate the end user and expose the software developers a bit more than I personally care for. There should be more emphasis on the responsibility of users to understand what they are getting themselves into.

EDIT: I drew my guns too quickly and forgot to mention I appreciate most of the other points and its simple presentation. I see the OP in the comments and commend ya for taking the leap.