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.
If this weren't true, Apple could just start inserting ads into every iphone's Safari window tomorrow, and Youtube could serve the ad in the same stream as the video to defeat adblockers, and they'd make a bunch of extra money with no downside. The fact that they don't do this suggests that Apple and Google understand this: people only tolerate restricted platforms that do a convincing job of pretending to be unrestricted. In practice, this means that step 1 of Google foisting off user-hostile stuff on us is getting Firefox to include it too, which is presumably why they spend so much money on it.
Yeah, Apple was toast after they did that. Their share price in 2014 when they did that was $24, and immediately afterwards it rose to $33 over the next 12 months. And since then, it's just been one long slow decline to almost $200 a share, as their global mobile market share has gone from the 24% it enjoyed in 2014 to the measly 29% it enjoys today.
Online outrage does not translate to action.
I think this illustrates that people only worry about this kind of thing if it gets shoved into their face.
The privacy thing is OK as long as it’s only used for the good. For example, I think nobody would object against a world where every killer would be caught within an hour to get a fair trial.
However, such a world also would be one where every traffic offense could be fined, and where powers that be could find some dirt on anybody in their email history, presence on on-street cameras, etc. Worse, it would take relatively few people to pull that of.
That’s something I think nobody wants, but it’s abstract until it affects you, so few people worry about it.
Privacy absolution is never what most people signed up for.
Also, “the police” are thousands of humans. That makes it harder to use the police for oppression than if “the police” were a bunch of computers and robots.
If somebody proposed the latter, I think lots of people would object.