The FSF does not dictate what you can and cannot install on your system! They really do "let the user decide".
However, just because you are free to do something does not mean you should. All the FSF is doing is presenting a clear, well-argued and rather balanced argument about whether you should support non-free games on Linux or not.
This is a complex issue and it is treated as a complex issue; all they do is provide their views on what would further free software most.
As to who cares: anybody who supports freedom of software cares. And, while such people are in the minority here (going off the OS poll I saw a while back), they still make up a significant percentage of the audience.
Well it is a bit strange that they do not for example endorse Debian, which is really principled on free software but lets the user decide what to install.
Sorry, my post wasn't meant to be an attack on the FSF at all, I assure you.
I care too. But I'm not every user and I'm not prescribing something for someone else. I'm all in favor of (the FSF) informing people and empowering people to choose free software free of DRM, but I'm also not going to imply that using a free OS means forgoing games or other things that might require DRM because developers (think they) need it to protect their IP and make a profit.
However, just because you are free to do something does not mean you should. All the FSF is doing is presenting a clear, well-argued and rather balanced argument about whether you should support non-free games on Linux or not.
This is a complex issue and it is treated as a complex issue; all they do is provide their views on what would further free software most.
As to who cares: anybody who supports freedom of software cares. And, while such people are in the minority here (going off the OS poll I saw a while back), they still make up a significant percentage of the audience.