I think you're completely missing the point. RMS and FSF have never claimed to even create an adequate free-software ecosystem, let alone perfect. They celebrate tons of free software progress since then and maintain a high-priority list for things that are yet to do: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
Many people confuse this, but being critical of ethical problems with the way technology is built in practice need not have anything to do with being anti-technology in general.
""We" should not allow that"... Yeah that sounds like freedom to me.
You are free to deal with these companies or not. Whether you agree with these companies and their ways is irrelevant. This is same as not agreeing with another persons' religion, you are free do choose a way to lead your life, don't try to force your way upon others. Others happily share their data with Google and reap the benefits of a very helpful Google Home assistant.
Direct your efforts towards educating these people about the potential downsides, yes, but don't try to use law or other forms of powers to change their ways. That is not freedom.
Worrying about free software advocates using the law against others is hilarious. It's like worrying about Walmart cashiers demanding to make more money than software developers.
It's not and I am glad it isn't. The GPL is sometimes enforced and rightly so, code authors choose this license and donated their time and skill under this condition (the GPL) of their choosing. Re-licensing it or ignoring the licenses is a crime, you lied that you would uphold the license when you started using the software.
Don't get me wrong, I love the GPL, I love free software! Choosing a license though, GPL or proprietary, is entirely up to the author of a piece of code though. Forcing open licenses upon authors is detrimental to freedom in general.
Worrying or not worrying about it has nothing to do with the ethics of breaking the GPL (or any license).
I see someone hasn't had GPL conflicts in their code base before. There is a reason companies specifically look for them and it's because the FSF and it's communities will make your life hell.
Try using proprietary libraries in your software without complying with their licenses and you'll see what having your life made hell means. GPL license holders barely ever sued anyone, and when they do (like FSF v Cisco), it's usually after years of trying to get them to comply. That they (rightly) complain about your practices is not using the law.
Just operating systems, and it was 30 years earlier by AT&T. Our user interfaces have gotten progressively worse, though, along with almost all user apps.
Many people confuse this, but being critical of ethical problems with the way technology is built in practice need not have anything to do with being anti-technology in general.