Left behind, forgotten, invisible?

The Biology Stack works just the same as all the other Stack Exchange sites (at least, as far as I can tell). We, the regular users, do not have any power to change that, it is all driven by the developers/maintainers of the site as part of the commercial branch of the company that runs the site.

The site does apparently sometimes take suggestions from the community on board, but Wikipedia suggests that this was last done in 2016. If you wished to implement change of the sort I think you are suggesting, you could approach a community manager (i.e. employed by the company - not just a Mod), but you are very unlikely to be given access to the servers etc that run the site, as you would need to be an employee to do so...

You say:

"Those who know how to organize it want to do their small part of forming a very secure system that looks at what's been getting attacked and guards and not how they got there and don't want to be made reliant on all those processes."

But, who are "Those", and why do you think that your/their ideas of how this site is run are better than those from the company running it? To be blunt, and hopefully you don't take this as insulting, but given your seeming lack of engagement with the biology site (despite being a long-term member), let alone the main SE, you would struggle to gain much traction with those with any power to change anything about the site. Even members with a high reputation and a long history here have little power to do anything significant - for example the "Monica debacle", though the 2023 Mod strike did result in some policy changes. However, even the Mod Strike didn't change anything too significant, and certainly not about the terms of usage of the site or anything engagement related.

The fact that your question isn't getting a lot of attention isn't too surprising to me - Meta questions in general don't attract a lot of attention, even if they are very topical.

Your question is aimed at the whole of Stack Exchange rather than just this site, which makes it not very topical at all. It also lacks a descriptive title of what your question might be - it looks like a complaint (a the body indicates too), but then devolves into a "my other post also didn't attract any attention", which is the same complaint as here - even some text copied over, just with an even less descriptive title. If you had titled either question with something more descriptive, perhaps along the lines of "How can we implement changes to user engagement policy?", then you might have gotten more attention, but not guaranteed, as this would still be outside the scope of this site's Meta.