There may be (at least) three paths to user liberation: Technical, Economic, and Legal. These factors are often at odds with each other, combining into lists of pros, cons, and compromises but are rarely mutually exclusive.

In the modern sense of the word, and also from the beginning, technical liberation is considered substantial (even by the technically inclined.) Gears have given way to tubes, tubes to relays, and wires to cards, paper and magnetic tape, floppy and hard disks, to writable CD's and USB sticks. This "technical" liberation, from often heavier, more difficult, more proprietary equipment to smaller, faster, easier and more interchangeable hardware (and software,) is often related in both directions to price: as things become cheaper, they become smaller and faster, and as they become smaller and faster, they often become cheaper. The graphical interface existed in the 1960s and 70s, but not for another decade or two would it slowly be integrated into personal or even commercial computing. Technical liberation means a larger number of people will learn (or bother) to make use.

Economic liberation is often hand-in-hand, but other times at odds with technical liberation. A MacBook will generally cost the user more, as will the fastest machine, but computing has largely improved in terms of skills needed and in price. Having more skills will often save the user money, and having more money will often save the need for learning more. This also implies that having less money could result in greater skills (if any) although access to books and tutorials (or other users) are generally necessary to reach a novice level. Economic liberation means a larger number of people will be able to afford to make use.

Legal liberation is often related to economic and technical liberation. A greater technical ability (which often reduces the cost of access) will possibly lead to a greater understanding of the restrictions and pitfalls of computing regarding the law. Where someone who pays no attention to the process of computing "simply uses" a computer, a person that uses the discrete capabilities of the computer (especially someone who uses it for a larger number of activities) is more likely to notice being legally shut out of their computer.

From the late 1970s, copyright law has turned nearly upside down, from most new works being in the public domain (with copyright as the exception) to most works new being copyrighted by default (with the public domain being the exception.) The impact on computing is substantial: instead of software programs being treated like recipes or mathematical formulas, to be spread freely and critiqued and improved, they are treated like books or music; to be entirely restricted for decades, uneditable without permission, and under complete control by the author.

The best way to become a more proficient user is to learn programming, and the best way to learn programming is to edit and take apart existing programs, though most programs are not available to the user in this capacity; neither legally, nor technically. In the 1990s and even today, website programming could largely be learned by clicking "View Source" in a web browser, and studying the code. An HTML dictionary or tutorial could be extremely useful, but without practical examples it's extremely difficult to write anything worthwhile. Today, simpler HTML has been largely superseded by more complicated CSS, which is mostly invisible (though retrievable) using the "View Source" feature. Flash websites are entirely opaque, and offer no view at all into their workings.

Much of what is touted as "ease of use" is actually an abstraction that keeps the user subservient to the publisher. Without any ability to dig deeper into the workings, the user is at the mercy of the publisher's whims, gimmicks, and lock-in. That's not to say that software has to be unfriendly or low-level, only that software which is truly helpful to the user in the long term will allow access to its deeper layers: locking the user out of the system means locking the user into the vendor, which in turn means the vendor will enjoy a relative monopoly, damning the industry, innovation, and the user forevermore.

It's got nothing to do with making the user put everything together from scratch, and simply making it so the user has the option of taking anything apart.

The alternative to legal liberation is to simply make it a crime for the user to control their own hardware and software. The user can (usually) turn the equipment on and off (with cell phones, it is not as easy as you might think) and failing all else, they can pull the plug or the battery. But when the computer is on, it is controlled by the BIOS, EFI, or the software. No user control of software means computer control of the user.

Technical liberation is most threatened by patents. A working patent system will reward inventors of original (and novel) devices, but not for so long that industry (or user) suffers too much. Our patent system today creates an arsenal of absurd and practically fraudulent claims for large companies to threaten each other with, and to shut out individuals from their own legitimate work.

Economic liberation is most threatened by monopoly. Not only does thwarting monopolies increase supply, it allows more innovation, which creates greater diversity of supply.

Legal liberation is most threatened by lobbyists, who use the government to cut off competition by creating sufficent legal barriers. The old guard is built on the backs of its employees and independent developers, who in turn had far more freedom than any of the new guard will ever enjoy. The giants built on shared and relatively open resources, made enough money to purchase lawmakers, and then banned the acts of sharing or opening anything.

It would be nice to have a simple theory that gave one factor to increase, so the other types of liberation could take care of themselves. That formula may or may not exist, but the three paths to liberation are undoubtedly interconnected.

One formula that will surely work is that if you make more and more illegal, the cost of computing rises, and the technical ability to do most anything becomes more stifled, at the very least more challenging. Ignoring the legal right to compute will always cost the user in the long run, and in every other way. Or as Richard Stallman once said: "...asking about the practical advantages of free software is like asking about the practical advantages of not being handcuffed."

The efforts to make computing "easier" and "cheaper" have brought computing to the masses. If computing is then "taken away" from the masses, or overly controlled by vendors, then computing will be replaced by mere "processing," and the user will become more of a peripheral device. Thus regarding the liberation of the user, we will be focusing largely on the legal (or if you prefer, the natural) rights of the user.