I had to upvote because both the title and text do qualify as unpopular by several standards. I suspect that it's rage bait rather than an actual opinion though.

Just in case it isn't bait, and is just unnecessarily aggressively worded, I agree with the underlying concept. I don't think it would apply to OS levels just because it's not relevant to the end user. No closed source os is going to be fully ethical. No corporate os can be either, imo, though I'm not as confident that a non profit is or isn't at the same risk of bad behavior.

But yeah, we should all have some degree of information about fundamental decisions in the process of what we use. How much detail, what details, and who is obligated legally is the real difficulty. You make it too much of a pain in the ass, and bye-bye big segments of the FOSS dev community.

However, I think trying to pin it on the fact of AI existing and being treated as a bad thing is spurious thinking. That's because there are already people that will object to and refuse to use software that's significantly dependent on apple or Microsoft. Not a ton of people, but they've existed for decades. Others will refuse to use anything closed source. People do what you're suggesting as well. Very, very rarely but some developers are quite open about some details of their hardware, and plenty will gladly talk about their os of choice and why they chose it.

So trying to shoehorn it into a false equivalency with ai doesn't hold water even with that false equivalency in play. Supervising a generative llm or letting the llm do everything, vs running an os on hardware just aren't the same thing at all.