Hecoobuh Sorry, but honestly, I think you're way off base:
- You say that the Free Software movement has lost the battle in the field of cell phones, but, according to the data, Android, which we like more or less is still an open source project based on Linux, enjoys a large market share, specifically 71.43% (May 2022 data). That, by all accounts, should be considered a victory. Moreover, I emphasize that Android, like Chromium, is an open source project, so it is only a matter of time and effort for an interesting privacy-oriented Android-based project to emerge that offers a service and quality as good or better than Android, and that reawakens the interest in privacy and its currents (a correlation would be the case of Brave Software, which is constantly increasing its number of users by offering a vitaminized and privacy-oriented Chromium).
- Google does not control the Internet as much as we might imagine, basically because it has not established itself in all existing networks, and there are projects that offer ecosystems 100% free of Google and its subjects (Utopia, for example). The problem that does exist is that many privacy-oriented projects are lacking in quality of service. They focus too much on security and privacy and end up leaving aside the interests of the ordinary user, but as I said, it is a matter of time before a project comes along that offers a healthy balance between privacy and services.
- About cryptocurrencies, no, it has not failed, literally at any time you can take your savings in your local currency and with them buy virtually any cryptocurrency in two clicks, and use them in real life through hardware wallets. Moreover, I find this statement completely absurd, because cryptocurrencies have only been with us for a little more than 10 years. Don't you think it is still too early to cry defeat? On the other hand, the statement that it only benefits the rich is also a lie. Cryptocurrencies benefit anyone who knows how to invest and manage their money, which is something that with time and the arrival of the "welfare states" has been forgotten by a large part of the population. Be aware of this: money is a commodity and as such its value fluctuates and moves according to a huge number of factors completely unrelated to what a central bank can decide because, like it or not, the market ALWAYS prevails (Example of this, the drug market), and about the environmental cost, I think that obviously the problem is not born of cryptocurrencies, but from the horrible energy management that our (what a surprise) governments have, but well, with time and the development of new technologies the trend seems to follow an environmentally friendly line, in the sense that one of the things that is sought is to have eco-friendly devices, including servers on which cryptocurrencies will be mined.
- On your 4th point, I don't see it right either. It's true that states are and will continue to meddle in our lives in one way or another, and that it's hard to convince someone out of the blue that privacy is something important that they should protect, but I have two objections to that. The first comes from an earlier point, it's hard to convince someone to use alternatives and privacy oriented software because they don't tend to have the same quality or offer a truly alternative service to what already exists, so the cost of change for the ordinary user is simply not worth it. It's like trying to convince your friends to use Signal or Session instead of Whatsapp. They will say "Yeah, it's respectful of my privacy and stuff... but I don't have anyone to talk to on it, I don't know anyone who uses it XD". Let's just let the software mature, and in the process let's keep trying to convince others to protect their privacy, even if it's little by little through not too complicated changes (For example, propose Chrome users to use Brave, or propose them to use Startpage instead of Google).
- On your last point, that is a problem of citizens versus states, not of privacy, but I am an anarchist, and believe me I am the first one willing to fight it head on, dialectically, through debates or through democratic means (although the latter I abhor), or directly through dissidence and flight and investment in countries that offer legislation more compatible with our interests (Switzerland, for example).
Leaving aside that billionaires are not the problem (what a mania many of you have for them, don't you realize that they are as much citizens as any of us? In legal terms the power you and Bill Gates have is the same), no, I don't think it's the end of our freedoms, quite the contrary. The Internet is a wonderful and wide-ranging medium in which dissent abounds, and technology continues to advance and make our lives a better place. I trust then that the market will end up promoting the basic value that sustains it above any state, freedom, and the values necessary to exercise that freedom, such as privacy and voluntariness among others. Finally... my friend, relax, don't be so negative and instead of lamenting, use that time and energy to continue fighting for what you love and desire. For my part, I'll just defer to my description: Fight for privacy, and die for freedom.