This is just obviously false. If you want to claim that Google's impact has been on balance negative we can certainly argue about that, but some clearly positive things include:

* Massive security improvements, including encryption (pushing HTTPS throughout the stack, funding Let's Encrypt, trackers on HTTPS adoption), site isolation, Project Zero, certificate transparency, pushing CSPs, authentication standards.

* Large speed improvements, including V8, HTTP/2, HTTP/3, Brotli.

* Web standards, including work on HTML5, JS standardization, web assembly, CSS flexbox and grid, webrtc.

(Disclosure: I worked on web stuff at Google 2012-2022)

I disagree and I think that some of these things are some problems.

Forcing HTTPS was not really the best idea (and HSTS is bad for other reasons too). Let's Encrypt is a way to get a certificate easily in case you do want or need HTTPS, although it does lead to problems, such as some businesses will have certificates that do not contain the identification their address and that stuff, and some more problems. In addition, I think the design of Let's Encrypt automated certificates is not very good either.

I had not known what is Project Zero, but Wikipedia says they find vulnerabilities and documenting them so that you can defend against it, and this is helpful.

The authentication standards they made up aren't that good either. If you already have HTTPS, then you can use client certificates, which has many benefits and some more security compared with many of the other methods being used (e.g. TOTP) as well as not needing JavaScripts and cookies and that stuff.

V8 is not bad, but the designs that need this much speed (not only V8 but also HTTP/3 etc) means the design is probably already excessive. Making or using a browser should not require this for everything.

HTML5 has some good ideas as well as some bad ones, and so do the other web standards. But older versions have their own problems too. I also think they put too many things in the document and the script and styles in the document, that should better belong in separate user settings.

I also think that believing that JSON and Unicode and that stuff that they use, are not really that good either. (I think DER is better than JSON in many ways, anyways)

> pushing HTTPS throughout the stack

Barriers to entry for self hosted sites. Easier to host with Google now.

> Large speed improvements, including V8, HTTP/2, HTTP/3, Brotli.

HTTP/whatever was done only for Google's benefit.

> Web standards, including work on HTML5, JS standardization, web assembly, CSS flexbox and grid, webrtc.

If they're so standard why do people develop for Chrome and ignore other browsers?

The way that monopolies dominate is by stagnating tech. IT tech. The driver of our economy. You're missing a decade plus of killed advancements through acquisition and extermination. The efficacy gains are theirs, we just get to larp as being better by using them. The idea that HTML5, JS standardization, web assembly etc. are important is ignoring how they are simply abstractions that maintain the status quo and add complexity that only serves builds their moat.

RSS is probably the best example. This is massively more efficient than any other thing you mentioned, which are only incrementally better. RSS saves orders of a magnitude more energy than is "saved" by modern JS which requires ever more powerful processors where older computers are simply incapable of browsing the modern web, but for some legacy websites which really highlight how "efficient" these techs you mentioned really are. The only thing they are efficient at is extracting money from users into Google's pockets and selling new iPhones.

Newer processors, massive low power RAM banks, specialized IP processors, cutting edge lithography, Webkit, Chromium, all these advancements google now claims as theirs with your logic.