I understand the definition of “Freedom” as laid out by e.g. the FSF. I was explaining why your argumentation is not convincing unless the audience already agrees that complicity in genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to software freedoms. I’m saying you could make a more convincing argument by just not making that comparison in the first place. Unless your point was “perhaps we should reconsider whether Open Source is Good”.

This assumes the audience will agree that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff for software freedoms.

I don’t know if “freedom to modify source code” and “committing a genocide” are morally comparable. This seems to undermine your point. I would have picked a different analogy