The FSF has an unfortunate relationship with firmware, resulting in policies that made sense in the late 1980s, but actively harm users today, through recommending obsolescent equipment, requiring increased complexity in RYF-certified hardware designs and discouraging both good security practices and the creation of free replacement firmware. As a result of these policies, deficient hardware often winds up in the hands of those who need software freedom the most, in the name of RYF-certification.
GNU/FSF is totally at fault here beginning with not actually developing an usable kernel. But in the case of a microkernel like Hurd, wouldn’t it just be easier for proprietary drivers? Still, I think max freedom enforcement may be a good thing as to press companies to adopt that. However, GNU not having control over kernel development is what allowed much o kernel surrounding proprietary blobs to take place, and then needing something like Linux-libre.
In any case as exemplified by the exception and the Purism case, GNU/FSF is hypocritical and it shows.