Also, if I recall correctly, MS has been able to get changes pushed upstream.
Yes, because they suit Google. I suspect you'd not get your contribution to get back Manifest v2 features which allow tampering with requests from extensions upstream. It would go against Google's decisions. They can say that it's for technical reasons, but this removal also helps their business model.
Chromium is a wonderful piece of software, but it's not politically neutral. Software, in general, is not neutral.
Assuming I have the resources, I can fork it and make the changes myself. At an individual level, I'm covered thanks to Chromium being free software. But at the collective level, not so much. Most people will likely continue to use Chrome (or Chromium with some luck) and play inside whatever limits Google sets. Unfortunately, some network effect is present too, which raises collective issues (some websites might not bother with compatibility with other browsers, for instance). And the collective aspect matters (to me).
Because of this network effect, using Chromium and Chromium-based browsers is, in my opinion, a vote for Google's business model. Not necessarily in the intent, but in effect. The issue is that individual choices don't only have individual repercussions.
Software, including free software, can harm society. Programs are not neutral. Power games are in effect. Hence why I think the free aspect is not sufficient.
I could have used a caricatural open source missile launcher example to convey this idea, but also seams less interesting.
Isn’t manifestv2 basically the same as Apple is doing? Apple has no business reason to prevent better ad blocking in Safari. Having untrusted third party code intercept all of your request is a privacy concern.
> Having untrusted third party code intercept all of your request is a privacy concern
Indeed, but I trust uBlock Origin. More than Google's software.
In any case, extensions are a privacy concern themselves. I still want to be able to install them. Those I trust. Google does have a review phase in their almost mandatory Play Store anyway, they could use this instead of removing useful features if that's their concern.
Are you not equating the resources needed to create a browser with the resources required to modify one?
Edit: It’s not clear why you think I did.
This is not logically correct. Let’s consider two statements:
1. If you are fit enough, you can run a mile in less than 5 minutes.
2. If you are fit enough, you can run a 100 mile ultramarathon.
Both statements are true, but clearly the level and kind of fitness required to do one is different from the other.
No offense, but this is the only way I understand your comment too, and apparently we are several people like this. If we take your two statements example, we understood your comment as if you were saying something like "if you are fit enough to run a 100 mile ultra marathon, you can run a mile in less than 5 minutes". Or "if you are fit enough to run a mile in less than 5 minutes, you can run a 100 mile ultra marathon", I don't know. Which might not be what you meant to say, but that's what we understood and why we are surprised.
No matter the logical mistakes people are doing while reading your comment, that's not what is important. What is important is understanding each other, and we apparently didn't get your point. You could rephrase it so we can understand what you want to say. You are telling us that we are wrong in our interpretation of your logical statement but that won't help us understand it. We are not trolling you or in bad faith.
It's not the only thing that is important, but it is still important. If you can't understand the logic of something, that is on you to improve your skills. If you made this mistake with what I wrote, then you will be making the same mistake elsewhere, often without knowing it.
> What is important is understanding each other, and we apparently didn't get your point.
People don't get each other's points all the time. This a is normal part of discussion.
> You could rephrase it so we can understand what you want to say. You are telling us that we are wrong in our interpretation of your logical statement but that won't help us understand it.
Are you saying you still don't understand it now that it has been explained?
> We are not trolling you or in bad faith.
How do you know what is going on inside other commenters heads?