Fice

Vulnerabilities such as spectre are only relevant if you run untrusted non-free software. Also these vulnerabilities show that sandboxing is not effective on current CPUs, and specific mitigations does not solve the problem in general.

They can't distribute firmware blobs simply because FSF and GNU do not in principle participate in distribution of any non-free programs.

Also consider that if a manufacturer can distribute opaque firmware updates to your system, it practically has remote control over it, е.g. Intel can activate a backdoor in specific CPUs when needed by publishing a microcode update.

As a Russian I'd rather call it the Putin's war.

Of course, no one will be making cars intentionally unsafe, but the law is also a risk factor, the risks of getting fined, jail time or licence revocation count too, and these risks can be made higher.

Advertising does not simply suggest you something that you might need, it often tries to manipulate you into needing something, and with the amounts of personal data being collected and advancements in machine learning this manipulation becomes dangerously effective.

Telling computers and humans apart is a wrong goal. Every request comes from a computer that is commanded by some human. And why shouldn't users be allowed to use automated user agents when they don't do it for spamming or anything malicious?

CAPTCHA is essentially a proof-of-work variant where challenges are designed to be solved by humans rather than computers, and same as any PoW it works by means of consuming some limited resource (human time, processor time, energy).

Can a vendor be held responsible for anything an unauthorized pirated copy of their software does?

You don't. That's a way to punish all users of pirated software.

Software vendors can deliberately leak "pirated" copies of their programs to Russian torrent sites with backdoors and other malicious code added. That could be an effective countermeasure.