Monopolies arise naturally unless we work hard to avoid them.

  Maybe the poor kid would rather not tell the trainer that he is poor and face paternalistic attitudes? And the rich kid wouldn't be reminded all the time that he is guilty of having richer parents? Add race/migration and you'll quickly tolerate bullying because of "social reasons".

  This has also the effect of fueling envy

  and allows employers to discriminate you if they see that you have side income (or if you don't). 

  Why make all of this fuss about RGPD if private data is in the open?

  And why not include medical data as well? The "tribe" has the right to know how much each one costs, right?

Let me give an example: The local kid socker team is organizing a cup, and the parrents need to help organizing, making and selling cookies, etc. This is organized through an app, where you sign up for tasks, and everyone can see what you are commiting to contribute. The same team also have an arrangement where the(small) membership fee can be waivered if you can't afford it, or you can get help buying equipment(shoes) for your kid. This is handled by you letting the trainer know in private, and he will discretely handle it.

Python famously does not have it because "Language inventor Guido van Rossum contended that stack traces are altered by tail-call elimination making debugging harder, and preferred that programmers use explicit iteration instead". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call

When we have communal contributions in other settings, your contribution is usually not a secret.

It is meant to give the tax system more legitimacy, that you don't gave to wonder if people sneak out of their contribution, you can check. It also leads to yearly debates about the tax system as the list of the richest(usually inherited) is published together with what they pay in income tax vs wealth tax.

Previously you could check up anyone anonymous. These days you have to log inn, and they get a notification. But the list of the richest and their tax contribution gets published in the newspaper.

And wrong I must add, ignoring people who have made an actuall change in the world (although its true that most people end up making very little difference either way).

So it also comes down to what kind of OS you want. I find SailfishOS interesting, but I also really like the hardware of the Fairphone.

To achieve a better digital world, where technology works for people rather than against them, several steps must be taken:

1. Rebalance power between service providers and consumers. People should be allowed to control their digital experiences and decide how they want to use products that they own. It should be possible and practical to switch to alternative service providers, or tweak services they already use to suit their needs and preferences.

2. Tackle dependency on Big Tech. To lay the groundwork for innovative products and services and pave the way for alternatives to Big Tech, competition in digital markets must be restored. Technology based on principles such as openness, interoperability and portability must be advanced through strategic investments. For example, the public sector should leverage its power as a major procurer to support alternatives to big tech through exploring options for ethical procurement of technology services.

3. Double down on the enforcement of existing laws. Far from hindering innovation, regulations provide crucial guardrails to guide innovation and ensure a level playing field. Weak enforcement allows big tech to continue its damaging practices at the cost of freedom of choice, service quality, and innovation. To remedy this, enforcement of existing laws must be strong and vigorous. This includes the DMA and competition laws more broadly, but also other digital rules such as the GDPR and consumer law.

4. Close the existing legal loopholes by adopting a strong Digital Fairness Act. Increase legal certainty and address loopholes in the legislation to better protect people for instance against deceptive and addictive design, and unfair personalisation.

If its not clear through the actuall law or the accompanying comments what constitutes hate speech, it will be cleared up by the court itself.