Google Struggles to Justify Why It's Restricting Ad Blockers in Chrome

It's not struggling to justify, it's struggling to spin it in a way that doesn't sound completely evil...

Fortunately I think the "it's for your security" argument is getting tired now, and people are starting to see through it. What Google is really trying to secure is its control and profits.

Although as someone who regularly uses several different browsers (but never Chrome, only Chromium), I prefer using a filtering proxy to stop stuff from even getting to the browser(s). Unless they start ignoring proxy settings or refusing to use the proxy's certificate (sadly, that might be the next thing they try to "secure"...), I can still control how I consume Web content.

Because they're an advertising company and it isn't in their best interest to block ads. Of course that wouldn't sit well with their product, er, users.

Why remove users’ agency?

In computing, a user agent is software (a software agent) that is acting on behalf of a user. One common use of the term refers to a web browser that "retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with Web content".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent

I am struggling to justify continuing to use Chrome.

They can struggle all they want, but what I want is to switch to firefox. Competition is a wonderful thing.

They are justifying it just fine, author and others seem to only want to believe critics.

Cmd-Q