If it serves to destroy privacy and anonymity at the expense of them getting to control privacy community

Again, this seems blatantly false. Nothing GrapheneOS does destroys privacy or anonymity, they just prioritize security.

And they don't control "the privacy community," they just control a few popular, privacy-oriented corners of the web. By its vary nature, you can't control "the privacy community" because the privacy community is all about bucking control. In fact, "privacy community" is kind of an oxy-moron, privacy enthusiasts try to limit talking about themselves. If you pair privacy and anonymity, you'll get discussions about solutions, but people probably won't try to sell you on any one solution.

GrapheneOS is a security-focused OS with strong privacy and anonymity features you can choose to use. Here's their tagline from their webpage:

The private and secure mobile operating system with Android app compatibility.

That's what they deliver, privacy and security, and they do both reasonably well. If you look at their FAQ, private or privacy appears about 60 times, secure or security appears over 100, and anonymous appears once. If you read their documentation, it's clear that their focus is security first, privacy second, and that's about it.

They're not the only game in town, but they do have the most effective marketing. If that gets people interested in security and privacy that otherwise wouldn't, that's a good thing! Like any org, I think they have flaws, but I think they're generally a force for good.

Trump is treated as a disease in USA due to this very reason, him claiming "China virus" needs to be cured using eating bleach, fentanyl, other people claiming to eat tidepods and all kinds of mentally deranged nonsense.

Again, more inaccuracies. The FBI thinks COVID-19 likely came from a lab, so "China virus," while inflammatory, isn't necessarily too far from the truth. I doubt it was intentional, but that explanation seems more likely than the official explanation of "wet market." The US was also likely complicit here since the CDC was likely helping fund "gain of function" research (compare recent Congressional investigations vs the original statements).

Trump is problematic because he's a narcissist that will say anything to get attention, regardless of the truth. But sometimes he says true things, if they benefit him (or he gets lucky; I doubt he researches much).

After years of endlessly engaging with people trying to make them understand, there are not enough people listening to me.

Why are you making this about you? We were talking about the technical merits of various policies, but you seem to keep bringing up Daniel Micay and yourself. I don't see how either is relevant.

I honestly don't care too much about you (no offense intended) or Daniel Micay, I care about technical merits of apps and hardware. I'm reasonably technical, so I think I can do a decent job judging for myself which products fit what I want, and I recommend them accordingly. I'll often point out if a project has toxic leadership, but a good product is a good product.

So if you want to engage with me, it'll be on a technical level with no personal attacks.