It’s not hard to understand the basic idea, though I’m finding it hard to find any merit in it, as I’ve already said. I think it’s safe to assume it’s being ignored, because people can decide for themselves whether it looks like a good idea, and you’ve offered no support for it other than appeals to common sense. This is one instance where “repeatedly suggested things without any evidence” does apply.
That happens sometimes, I think it’s fine for you to call it out, and sometimes requests for precision and clarity are indeed a bit of a double standard (not necessarily bad, since we have busy contributors trying to talk to newcomers analyzing forum histories here). Big leap from there to “hypocrisy” though. Bigger still to “deep state actor”.
I’ve seen unman engage with a number of posts in a similar way to yours, and from that I guess the precision/clarity/evidence angle is more of a theme than anything to do with anti-privacy, though there’s going to be some correlation there that’s nothing to do with unman.
Making such aggressive claims as “deep state” when you can hardly back it up can be hard to come back from, though - you might not see “attacks” but you may notice less positive engagement.
I’m sure there are more lightweight ways to do this, and yes, I usually expect that sort of evidence before beginning to consider anything like this. Mods do move things around in the interests of curation, and some other instances are expected - see this thread for example.
Suspecting them of being a deep state actor, fighting back against poor treatment, and believing they’re obstructing other/more/better contributions, as have all been suggested by @capsizebacklog at some point, would all be good reasons tbf. I think right now the problem’s only in attacking without robust support for what you’re claiming - the forum’s not exactly drowning in conspiracy theories yet.