Freedom and convenience are virtually always antagonists.
Nothing about releasing source or having a collaborative contribution model suggests the software can't be convenient. A better terminology is that security and convenience conflict one another, because to be secure requires you to sacrifice your own convenience to limit foreign entities convenience in accessing your data.
Free as in beer, free as in freedom, and free as in degrees of freedom. Too many degrees of freedom makes a system inconvenient to use.
An application like Transmission is great: libre software but constrained in the "degrees of freedom" department, so you don't have the "chooseaphone" effect.
Edit: Let me illustrate. If I gave you a bike for free, you'd have the freedom to get around on it, tinker with it, sell it to someone else, etc.
If it had more degrees of freedom, it would be a unicycle, and much, much harder to use. But more flexible!
1. Lean forward and backward 2. Lean side to side 3. Twist 4. Pedal
Bicycle
1. Lean side to side 2. Twist handlebars 3. Pedal
We humans are often aided by tools. So, we can also talk about the freedom to study and modify said tools.
What many FOSS advocates seem to miss is that the first freedom, that which comes from being able to fulfil your own goals, is the most important one for everybody.
To the point where freedom of the tools is only relevant for you if understanding said tools was your personal goal in the first place.