I’m currently using SailfishOS as my daily driver due to the lack of apps on Ubuntu Touch. I have Ubuntu Touch on my PinePhone though. It certainly has its advantages over SailfishOS such as better app isolation, fully open source, a newer Qt version and I really like the idea of convergence.
I’m considering to port one of my Saiflish applications to Ubuntu Touch as well (a Jellyfin client), if I ever find the time for it. :)
I like ElementaryOS as well, but there is one big downside in my opinion that makes it less user friendly and that is that it does not officially support upgrading between major versions (e.g. 5.1 to 6.0). You have to either mess with repositories on the terminal and hope for the best or you have to do a complete reinstall. So if you install Elementary OS, make sure to create a separate /home partition so you can perform a major upgrade without loosing too much data.
Otherwise, I believe that Elementary OS is quite nice. Although I had to help them at first by pointing out where the application menu is and to help them install LibreOffice (they were already used to it on Windows and it apparently did not show up in the App Centre), they mostly seem to be able to use it themselves with the same amount of assistance required as while using WIndows.
Just like a kitchen knife can be used by murderers does not mean that the kitchen knife manufacturer should actively monitor who is buying their knifes and go after the ones with bad intentions in my opinion. In the same way, I don’t think free software should be licensed under such an ethical open source license.
First of all, it’s just very hard to enforce I’d imagine. Would people who do not care about respecting human rights to begin with even care about such a license? You’re not stopping “evil” by making up rules that “evil” people don’t follow almost by definition. At least the license is more clear about what is considered as acceptable and what not unlike the infamous “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil” clause, for which I have to give it some credit.
Everything you can make can be used for wrong things and I suppose you’ll have to accept that you’ll never have full control over that. The only thing that can stop something to be used by people with bad intentions is to never create it in the first place.
Besides, I´d rather have my enemy use open source software instead of closed source software. If they use open source software, it’s easier to get a grasp on what they’re capable of.
For software like Lemmy with federation, I’d just say to block those from federating to your own instances and stop giving those instances attention. As long as the flagship instances that federate with each other keep up a positive attitude, I would just ignore those extremist people’s instances
I wouldn’t be surprised if some audio watermarking is already going on right now. Universal Music Group has done this for a while on their music. In 2008 UMG was using watermarks unique to each distributor, not to each person purchasing or streaming the watermark. I’m not sure if UMG is still doing this, in the update on the first blog post linked, some said it has stopped, some say it hasn’t.
The technology to do it is already there. I’m not surprised if near-inaudible audio watermarking exists now, I’m not an expert on this field. To put an unique ID per subscriber can be done as well on a technical level I assume. I believe whether this is done depends on the streaming service or download store, because it comes at a cost of using more computing power on their servers. I don´t know whether it is allowed by the GDPR and similar laws either.
I don’t know if it is worth it either. If I look around into my social circle, most people have moved towards streaming services. Only a “stubborn” few, such as myself, still—legally or illegally—download music. Based on this, I feel like music piracy isn’t as big as it used to be.