…without it you cant properly secure the phone.

My understanding is that a locked bootloader helps protect against evil maid attacks and bootloader-level malware persistence. I find this a security risk that I would absolutely take for Google independence. “Properly secure” is subjective.

GrapheneOS do decide what phones they support. It is exactly their choice to support only Google Pixels, rather than taking a security hit for hardware independence (whether you agree with the decision or not).

The solution is to have stronger privacy laws.

Many people have the power to make certain privacy attacks impossible right now. I consider making that change better for those people than adding a law which can’t stop the behavior, but just adds a negative incentive.

I wouldn’t wait around for the law to prosecute MITM attacks, I would use end to end encryption.

Choosing an esoteric system for yourself is a good way for a free people to protect their privacy, but it won’t scale.

If this is referencing using a barely-used system as a privacy or security protection, then I would regard that as bad protection.

Everyone using GrapheneOS would be a net security upgrade. All the protections in place wouldn’t just fade away now that Facebook wants to spy on that OS. They’re still in place; Facebook’s job is still harder than it otherwise would be.

…if someone nefarious gets to the point they can read this stuff then they’ll already be able to record your screen, log keystrokes, etc.

No screenshots -> less data. Less data -> lower breach severity.

(Unless you have an unusual threat model)

All this can be gutted by an advanced user.

Talk is cheap. Show me the code.

…the government is absolutely a threat to you.

I don’t see how this supports your previous claim of: “If you don’t have privacy from the government, you don’t have privacy.”

If you don’t have privacy from the government, you don’t have privacy.

Privacy refers to more than just privacy regarding the government.

Your threat model and situation might mean if the government knows something, its as bad as if every single person knows it.

But this isn’t for everyone.

The censorship being referred to here is a legally defined term…

There is no such mention by OP about the legal definition.

Censorship in all the dictionaries I see don’t require it to be a government that is censoring for it to be called “censorship”.

Someone attempting to hinder someone else’s ability to reach certain information is engaging in censorship.