The laws are entirely stupid (as in written by people that have no clue).
The ones I see do not make using a VPN illegal, they make it illegal for certain websites to receive traffic from VPNs.
As a website, how am I supposed to know if I am receiving traffic from a VPN?
I have to maintain a database of restricted IP addresses? How do I keep that up-to-date? How do I catch small players? Self-hosted stuff?
And even if I do all that, how do I tell where the actual user is? Because that is exactly what VPNs were designed to hide from me. So, I cannot apply it to residents of a state—I have to refuse VPN connections from the entire world.
It is impossible and pointless. Anybody actually doing anything wrong will get around it easily. So all it accomplishes is reducing the security and increasing the hassle for everybody else.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Based on tone, I doubt this is a real question but others may have the same one.
Moving to Linux can be difficult if Linux provides no viable alternative for software that you rely on.
Despite the availability of things like GIMP and Krita, Photoshop and other Adobe products are perhaps the most often cited software preventing user migration to Linux.
Affinity is the software most often cited as being a viable replacement for Adobe (on any platform). Currently, Affinity does not support Linux.
Therefore, the thesis here is that Affinity becoming available on Linux would make Linux a viable option for a material number of potential new users.
This would have implications for both the popularity of Linux as a desktop and Affinity as an alternative, weakening the hold Adobe has on professional media.
I think the significance is overstated. I do not believe the impact would be as spectacular as predicted here. But the basic argument is valid. It would be a positive development and everything that gets the ball rolling contributes to the eventual snowball.