What is it you are proposing? If it were every institutions obligation to make sure, that all its instrumental functions were obvious to every potential user and keep any user from engaging with the institution under any false assumptions, nothing in our society would work.

That it not to say that scrutiny is not important. You should certainly be allowed to point at any individual function and demand more upfront transparency, over what is currently being offered. But be aware of the massive additional cognitive load you create, for everyone, when you are not just demanding information availability, but that this information is being delivered to anyone it might concern. Any individuals preference to not care about a function would have to take the backseat to the opinion, that they have to at least somewhat consider the function before engaging.

Considering how expensive this process is, "Google Chrome CrUX" would probably be pretty far down on the list for me personally, as "crucial things everyone should definitely know about before possibly engaging" goes, but to each their own.

I could see two main arguments for this not being okay:

* Chrome is secretly collecting data.

* Chrome is doing something users would object to if they knew and understood it.

I don't think either of these are the case here: they are sharing data about what sites people generally visit in an aggregated form doesn't reveal any individual's browsing (what's to object to?) and talk about it in the place people would go to learn about what data they collect.