Your logic seems to fall apart here.
> an operating system which essentially handles all of your private data.
This is exactly why one should continue using GrapheneOS as it is by far the best, most secure and private option. If you do not agree with one project member about something that is not related to the technical features of the project, it does not matter, since you can not be targeted with any GOS updates. Same updates would have to go to all GOS users and as stated before, the previous project leader has a stellar reputation when it comes to their work and prior actions regarding users security and privacy.
> the artist being "Google" and all their controversial practices
You believing this is a problem, you should then be using an iPhone anyway.
You are worrying GOS devs might push a malicious update, even when there are no proofs of that happening? What prevents the same from happening with other projects that are already inferior in every way? You are implying people should switch to less secure options because of this one thing that also applies to all other options? It does not make any sense and seems dishonest.
> an operating system which essentially handles all of your private data.
This is exactly why one should continue using GrapheneOS as it is by far the best, most secure and private option. If you do not agree with one project member about something that is not related to the technical features of the project, it does not matter, since you can not be targeted with any GOS updates. Same updates would have to go to all GOS users and as stated before, the previous project leader has a stellar reputation when it comes to their work and prior actions regarding users security and privacy.
> the artist being "Google" and all their controversial practices
You believing this is a problem, you should then be using an iPhone anyway.
You are worrying GOS devs might push a malicious update, even when there are no proofs of that happening? What prevents the same from happening with other projects that are already inferior in every way? You are implying people should switch to less secure options because of this one thing that also applies to all other options? It does not make any sense and seems dishonest.