That sort of things.
It's not propaganda in any sense, it's recognizing that Linux is behind the state of the art compared to Windows/macOS when it comes to preventing tampering with your OS install. It's not saying you should use Windows, it's saying we should improve the Linux boot process to be a tight security-wise as the Windows boot process along with a long explanation of how we get there.
It's only secure from evil maker attacks if it can be wiped and reinitialised at any time.
Is it possible someone will eventually build a system that doesn't allow this? Yes. Is this influenced in any way by features of Linux software? No.
No, not you. Someone else for you. And that's the scary part.
In a few years running random code on your computer would be seen a bit unethical.
I hope this never happens. I really want my data secure and I do have something to hide. So, no Microsoft keys on my computer and only I will decide what kind of software I get to run.
Absolutely fuck that.
Turning off SecureBoot only means any rando can decide what software runs on your device and install a bootkit. Not authenticating the rest of the boot process as outlined here (what Microsoft calls Trusted Boot) only means that randos can tamper with your OS using the bits that can't be encrypted.
Literally an own-goal in every sense of the word.
I see it as exactly the opposite: turning SecureBoot on means someone else can and will decide what software runs on my device.
> spite Microsoft or something you're going to make your data less secure
We all know very well Microsoft's track record with security and with data protection measures and practice. Trusting Microsoft is... irrational, let's put it that way.