I am sure if someone gets a heart attack, s/he would be operated on immediately in your country, but later s/he would get a massive bill to pay. Or, if you are getting old, and cataract is attacking, you might get your eyes operated, but the resulting bill will be too much. What if there are countries, where your mandatory insurance is so low, you get both the operations done and nothing much to pay, except for medicine, and even that is given free if you are past a certain age as long as you live. Now, which country has better human rights?Sideloading is no human right and human rights don't depend on sideloading.
But I believe there is (or should be) a human right for private communication.
If a government tries to take that away by banning the devices/tools that enable private communication, the ethical thing for a company is to make them accessible and free them government control.
If a place to live is a right, food is a right, medicine and medical assistance is a right, education is a right, etc, etc, which country has better human rights?
If the word freedom is the keyword, but you are not allowed to buy certain electronic products and services, just because the ruling class doesn't like some country (like China), do you really have freedom?
Shouting "human rights" is quite easy, but how do you explain that to people, who live under bridges, shop fronts etc?