How could it be nonconsensual? The policy is provided when installing the software. This may certainly be a bad decision for the Audacity team, but nobody is being forced to use their product.
If you’re not concerned with the licensing on software once you’ve managed to get a copy, I guess Audacity’s behavior shouldn’t be an issue: just compel it to behave differently on your machine.
Oh I will. The thing is I shouldn't have to do this. We're all tired of these obnoxious companies forcing this sort of crap on us. Why can't they just release their stupid thing with no strings attached? If this is their "contribution" I'd rather they just did nothing.
Right there you name one of the biggest joys of FOSS for me. On my machine, I sure do love that all my tools do my bidding the way I want them to. :)
"Consensual" in that case would mean opt-in telemetry.
Imagine if your grocery store terms were that you have to pay to take them home... and also that you must consent to a grocery store employee following you home and sitting in your kitchen, watching your vegetables. They'd take note of how and where you store them, when you use them, how you prepare them, how much you eat in each sitting, what meals you eat them with, and how satisfied you seem to be with them. They'd report all of this information back to the grocery store. They'd also report anything else they see or hear and decide they might be interested in later on.
Does that really not sound extreme?
I believe this argument of "users have a freedom to either take it or leave it" has been repeatedly debunked many times over. It just isn't accurately describing reality.
As an example, UK schools are likely to have to either negotiate an alternate license or switch products.
What’s been “debunked” is that products die off because of things like adding telemetry, because plenty of people don’t consider that a dealbreaker