"This applies to all software that the seller includes in the product, or provides with the product, or recommends for use in conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation in the product... By way of explanation, a general-purpose facility for installing other programs, with which the choice of programs to install comes directly from the user, is not considered to steer users toward anything in particular. However, if the facility typically suggests installation particular programs, then it steers users towards those programs."
" The FSF has never been content to work toward the creation of free software and advocacy for its use; it has also made an overt effort to ensure that, like an Orwellian "unperson," proprietary software is never even mentioned. So a mobile device running a system like MeeGo might qualify for the FSF's endorsement, assuming it's open, lacking binary drivers, etc. But if the application installer lists a popular proprietary Flash plugin or network telephony application, it may be deemed to be "steering users" toward non-free code."
I honestly don't see how you can read the text that way. AFAICT it explicitly says that /listing/ a proprietary application would be OK. It seems to me that, in this case, your preconception of the FSF affects your reading of the text.
Also, this particular requirement appears to be reasonable. Technology, or UIs for that matter, are not politics-free and *suggesting* installation of proprietary software is indeed promoting that software. I can understand why you would not want such a requirement to be part of an "Open/Hackable Hardware" specification, but this very much belongs in the requirements for an FSF-endorsement badge. Which does not mean that an "Open Hardware" badge is not needed or wanted.
Needless to say, I find the use of "Orwellian" here just plain wrong. The same goes for "newspeak". Language is not politically neutral either and choosing to use language that brushes aside issues having to do with software freedom, is, in effect, conceding that this freedom is not that important to you. You or I can afford to only speak about software freedom in a friendly court, but, by definition, ANY honest Free Software Foundation can't do that.
That is not to say that some of your other points (especially the one about proprietary-software-X-compatible badges) are not valid :)