This is the point that company breakups start to make a lot of sense.
When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates and none of us can do anything about it, they perhaps have too much market power.
I don't think this is remotely the case. Quite a few tech-savvy people I know (some of them software developers) use Chrome and mostly don't care about whatever Google does with it. I mention "manifest v3" and get a blank stare. I talk about advertising and ad blockers, and most people don't care, with some of them not even using ad blockers.
We really live in a bubble, here on HN. Most people think of privacy as some abstract thing that they have little control over, and are mostly fine with that. And some are even also fine with government erosion of privacy, in the name of "save the children" style arguments, and of corporate erosion of privacy, in the name of getting free stuff in exchange for their personal information.
It's a sad state of affairs. If most people really did care strongly about these sorts of issues, then I think it would be baffling why we haven't seen more change here -- after all, Firefox is a perfectly viable alternative to Chrome that very few people use. But the lack of change is no surprise: most people don't care.
When you talk about communications technology adopted at a societal scale, changes in norms and routine have ripple effects. Most certainly one of those is a change in asymmetric power relations by central communications companies, versus the user of their systems who get strictly limited information views of what is happening with their phone calls or emails.
When you have asymmetric power relations with market advantage and secondly literal surveillance at stake, a unilateral change in the service agreement is not a small "oh well" matter.
This single statement "people do not care" does not show all the players, and most especially does not show the players making decisions, the management of the companies making more money or new revenues with new decisions.