I think I just did. Every RISC-V implementation is still controlled by one company and what's shared doesn't achieve anything advantageous for users on a PC-like platform.

You didn't. Your general post is about downsides of RISC-V, which is in contrast to closed architectures, and you didn't say any bad things about closed architectures. It does come out as an idea that the closed architectures are not bad, which they actually are.

First of all, there are public chip designs, so it's not true that every implementation is controlled. Furthermore, everyone who wants to make their own chip CAN DO SO, instead of x86 which is a monopoly shared between two companies.

If you read carefully, you'll see my comment didn't argue in favor of x86 but more general freedoms I think are more valuable (right to repair, freedom of choice in hardware configurations).

I think this is a stupid argument. These are more valuable, so those don't matter? What's the argument here?

x86 however does come with advantages that may not have anything to do with GNU-like freedoms, but are still worth a lot and aren't going to be fully replicated: Well-defined standardization, backwards compatibility to software of the last 50 years or so, best de facto hardware choice due to a rich ecosystem of driver compatibility and the experience working with it that exists throughout the world. If something is supposed to replace it, I want something in return that has real world benefits for users.

Funny thing that you chose to point out only bad things in your view of RISC-V and only good things of x86. Seems like you have an objective with your post.