This is clearly wrong, rooted devices are much more insecure because they enable low level access to maliciously alter the system. Malware often requires root and will first try to attempt to attain root, which of course isn't necessary if a user has manually unlocked root themselves.
> Your claiming it's ok to take the agency from people away to decide over a major part of their live (which sadly phones are today) because maybe they could act irresponsible and do something stupid.
No one is taking away any user's agency. Users are free to root their phones if they wish (many Android phones at least will allow it), but companies are also free to deny these users service. Users are free to avail themselves of any company's service on a non-rooted phone. "Not using rooted phones to access anything you like" is hardly a major loss of agency.
Phone insecurity is very dangerous IMO, much more dangerous really than bathtubs or perhaps knives. You could argue that vehicles are similarly very dangerous and I'd agree. I don't think we're very far off from locked down self-driving cars. Unfortunately we're not there yet with self-driving tech and the current utility of vehicles still outweighs their immense safety risks. You can't really say that about rooted phones. The legitimate benefits of a rooted phone are largely relevant to developers, not the average user, and most users never attempt to tinker with their phone.
If you can't proceed with a normal life after you root you phone you are NOT free to do so but instead get punished when doing so.
> If you can't proceed with a normal life after you root you phone you are NOT free to do so but instead get punished when doing so.
Freedom to root doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of rooting. Banking apps are hardly necessary for a normal life, and neither is rooting.