Many devices can absolutely be built in a way that they do not require a dumb remote server to work, but they're built that way anyways because the manufacturer is rent seeking. It can be damn near impossible to find equivalent devices that don't do that. It is absolutely right to get one and complain about absurd remote links that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Is it clearly advertised at time of sale that X comes with the insane restrictions? Is there a viable alternative to X without? What are the consequences if you don't make a purchase at all?

There are some necessary conditions to fully consent to an agreement. If someone has a gun to your head and tells you to do something you don't want to do, it is not entitlement to comply but complain instead of "sticking to your principles".

> Then don't buy that device

Except when the device doesn't appear to be, but can be updated in a way that makes it obvious it does. Absolute statements like "all devices should be able to be jailbroken" or "I want things supported forever" or "just dont do x" are misguided. The world is more complicated, even on this issue. Any implemented solution will have holes and the world will be all the better for it. Progress requires things to die off.