[tranq_cassowary]

> Even if it improves accessibility, it must be rejected out of hand

GrapheneOS has many exploit mitigations and those that would break compatability with too much apps are opt-in instead of opt-out. They also have per app toggles so you can decide to use them per app. So they certainly don't sacrifice accessibility for the highest level of security.

> GrapheneOS promises to liberate us from the enshittification of Google's anticompetitive moat

This isn't something GrapheneOS promises anywhere on their website. They aim to offer a secure and private OS with good compatability with Android apps.

> but it focuses that effort exclusively on security.

They focus on privacy and usability as well. Security is actually only focused on because the privacy features aren't enforceable without security.

> Why is that constantly treated as an unreasonable fantasy?

Because tinkering, hackability and unrestricted freedom aren't the purposes for which GrapheneOS was made.

[thomastjeffery]

It's good enough for you, and therefore it can't get any better. Interrupting the user with pointless notifications is not security. Removing the ability to disable those notifications is only a security feature if the user wants then in the first place!

The problem here is more than the lack of interest in making a system that is both secure and usable. It's the outright rejection of usability as a goal.