By what chain of reasoning do you derive the existence of the moral obligation to users who have paid exactly nothing let alone the obligation to consider what the broader world thinks of open source developers. It's pretty clear Kovid is a bit of an asshole and sometimes outspokenly incorrect but what right do we have to demand different? Usually such an obligation is transactional. Even if unspoken and devoid of monetary context there is some broader context SOMETHING of value is gained or lost.

So far as I can see the only thing we give Kovid is attention which is cheap and he gives us work which is dear. If you don't agree that the present transaction of putting up with the existence of opinionated posts which you don't have to read for a useful piece of software you don't actually have to use it.

It would even be useful for you to expand on why you think its insecure because that may inform users who can then see to their own interests better for having the benefit of your counsel but don't bore us with talk of his moral obligation unless you can't substantiate such.

The spoiler alert is that you cannot because you have confused the right to control the mores of a particular community with the right to impose those on non-members.