I'm failing to parse the "own ethical standards" as it relates to chromium-based browsers and this conversation about firefox..can you maybe explain, does removing the ability for users to block adds seem more ethical than not?

Using Chromium-based browsers means you give Google, the surveillance company that works with ICE and the military, more power over the web to do stuff like push Manifest V2.

Everyone has their own ethical standards around this but I think Firefox is clearly seen as the browser to use if you care about the open web. A lot of people therefore feel the need to defend their preference for a Chromium-based browser.

IMO that obfuscates the fact that even non-Chrome Chromium based browsers still affords Google massive influence over the future of the web.

People often will tell lies to themselves and other to support their personal ideology. Product A is bad and so is product B. So why should I move from A to B? They are try to rationalize their belief system versus looking at realty.

Reality is that non-tech people to know what surfing the web is like with Ad-Block vs non-Ad-Block browsing. Once you teach some one it becomes night and day.

Without teaching someone very few people will step out of their comfort-zone to self educate.

Is this being done for the benefit of the users? The question applies to many decisions in Chrome. It's the ethical side of the maker.

Is letting Firefox slip into irrelevance (by not using it) in the interest of the users, writ large? What developments should we expect if this happens? This is the ethical side of the user.