Perhaps you need uMatrix to go far enough to trigger their protectionism.

That’s something different. The PSP is separate and runs in parallel to (and independent of) the TPM. The two coexist because they serve different purposes. “As of 2025, a TPM is provided by nearly all PC and notebook manufacturers in their products.” So 12 years following the introduction of the PSP, the TPM is still in play.

I thought the TPM was relatively innocuous for those not running oppressive software. But perhaps I should revisit this, considering this from wikipedia:

“In 2015, Richard Stallman suggested replacing the term "trusted computing" with the term "treacherous computing" due to the danger that the computer can be made to systematically disobey its owner if the cryptographical keys are kept secret from them.”

RMS specifically condemns TPM version 2.0. Not sure what version motherboards for the Trinity CPU use.

I previously thought TPM had no remote relationships. But remote attestation is certainly an anti-feature if the hardware can talk to the cloud without the control of users on a FOSS platform. Is that the concern that you have? I need to get to the bottom of this. Unlike the PSP, the TPM is open source. So the TPM should be well understood. The fact that the PSP is closed-source is in itself a problem. Obviously PSP is something to avoid.