There are by now thousands of examples of this, I wonder why you would ask for an example, this is about as uncontroversial as the sun going up tomorrow.
The number of times that Linux distros, free software, has made my computer unusable, requiring me to manually fix it, is uncountable. Bugs from OS updates is still entirely possible even without updating firmware blobs.
Yes, agreed, the entire idea of OTA updates to cars has a lot of bad consequences. No matter the license.
So when we analyze the entire position of the FSF, all three cases listed above, I don't think you actually agree with them. FSF isn't against updating firmware on the fly, they just want certain things when it happens. And those things won't improve safety.
But: Stallman & the FSF are idealists, they are not in a position to argue for practical measures, by definition they have to take a relatively extremist position and dig in. If they didn't do that they would get nowhere. So I understand why they're doing it but I do not think their stance is overly practical or workable. But everybody will dilute that stance in their own particular way and so the net effect is potentially positive. If they would take a much milder stance then that positive effect would be diminished.
I would say that exempting unchangeable blobs is a big concession all by itself and the idealist position is that roms with programs need to be open source too.
