Whether or not Linux becomes a mainstream option and loses much of its appeal in the process creating a schism between 'sanitised linux' and 'free rebel' linux with the latter being sidelined because of various attestation and verification schemes stopping you from actually doing anything useful with your free-rebel computer; doesn't sound like it would actually make a huge difference.

If all the recent rise in popularity and usability and adoption of linux stopped dead in its tracks today or even went backwards, and also the dystopian future you fear about mandatory face scans becomes reality, those using linux will get sidelined and put in to a 'digital exile'; if insetad it does continue to rise and erode some of the share of desktops that windows enjoys and you end up with the 'sanitised linux' you're afraid of causing a divide amongst the linux community, then you just get the same outcome for those that refuse to use the sanitised versions and insist on their 'free rebel' versions.

Either outcome, doesn't sound like it's any worse the other really, but at least in the interim, greater mainstream embrace of linux would be better and even in long term where it might get sanitised, it could still be a better outcome depending upon just how badly compromised the 'sanitised linux' actually turns out to be.

In the end, this sanitised linux could be worse than windows and ultimately the situation wouldn't really have changed much since at that point 'free-rebel' linux basically just becomes what was always 'linux' and 'sanitised linux' is just 'something else, not really linux in most people's estimation.' The two scenarios look kinda the same to me.