@globalcitizen I'm coming from a place where I see our current way of building as not just profoundly ugly, but environmentally catastrophic - but that is the end result, so it is worth looking at the reasons why this has happened, obviously there are many reasons, but some of them are interlocking with 'BIM'.
We can look at chains of consequences: the building industry, certainly in the English-speaking world, is deeply adversarial, so there is a legal pressure to make the BIM information unambiguous, layering this semantic database stuff on all parts of the building (though interestingly, it is still the PDF documents and correspondence around them that form the actual contractual information, nobody presents a BIM model in a court or arbitration). So we have these building design-as-database models that require Byzantine software like Revit, and requiring nerds to operate this software the immediate result is that the people actually modelling the building have very little experience of construction - you wouldn't believe how much money is lost in claims and delays simply because nobody at the design stage has the faintest idea what they are doing - the solution is to modularise everything and make buildings assemblies of certified 'products'. Leaving aside the likelihood that none of our greatest architectural heritage could have been built under such a system, no manufacturer is going to certify a 'product' for longer than a twenty to thirty year lifespan, which the financing is fine-with because the discounted value after twenty-five years is near enough to zero to make no difference. But the products are always supplied by the lowest bidder, who shaves their costs by actually designing the product to only last twenty-five years. By design we create a world that consumes the maximum possible amount of resources. The BIM solution is to run with this idea of built-in obsolescence and add a whole layer of decommissioning/recycling information to the IFC database, this is instead of designing long-lived adaptable architecture in the first place.
'Dark patterns' are the things we make easy, the workflows that are optimised to feel like the natural way to do a thing when, looked-at objectively, we really ought to be doing something else. The problem with proprietary closed-source software is not just that it restricts our freedom to do what we want with our own data, but that it directs our range of actions to that envisaged by the designer of the software. If we can identify a flaw with free software, it is often that it reproduces the functionality of the previous generation of proprietary software, this is usually fine as it builds a free ecosystem, but in the building industry we have multiple ways of doing things that need urgent root and branch change.
I actually think we are in a good place with the existing free tools, IFC is a good enough base, and where the work is funded by the industry it is ok to expect the result to reflect the industry's priorities, but where we are working on our own time there are whole aspects of the BIM industry that maybe we don't need or want.