Thank you for your explanation. I see your point and, like you, I don’t want to make any advertisement or present lists biased toward any side. I would like to have a balanced picture, which is why I’m discussing it here. (I myself also do not want to become a Purism fanatic and want to have a balanced view of the things.)
First, just to note that those things are not “yes/no” questions, just like security in general. There are always grey areas and different shades of trust, which also depend on the threat model and history of the company’s actions.
This is not irrelevant at all. It shows that Lenovo the company is willing to sacrifice some user trust for money via very shady tactics. Also, it’s not about “Windows adware”, it’s about intentionally including malware several times, including by infecting its BIOS. My personal trust in them was significantly decreased. It’s a very similar issue like with Purism, when they retroactively changed their return policy. In Purism’s case, though, it wasn’t about security and privacy, unlike with Lenovo, which should be very relevant for the Qubes users (judging by myself here).
According to @michael, that was the time when both Qubes and Purism were just learning how to do those things, and the current policy came out as a result of that. But even if that was a mistake of Purism, who doesn’t make mistakes? Or do you think it was intentional and may happen again?
Again, I also want a balanced list, like you. However, if this laptop is actually better in some way, I don’t see how it is an advertisement. Note how I did not suggest to remove the discussion on Purism, I definitely agree that it’s relevant here. The security incidents with Lenovo are relevant, too, though, IMHO.