I disagree with the idea that users won't see benefits - the benefit is that upgrades to a critical protocol can be rolled out more smoothly in the face of comp

I disagree with the idea that users won't see benefits - the benefit is that upgrades to a critical protocol can be rolled out more smoothly in the face of compliant middleware. This benefit will be significant for end users. Sending messages to Congress would be very different - that's squarely outside of the purview of a browser. TLS is not. As for Microsoft having Windows 10 insert things to support a proprietary technology, again, this is a flawed analogy - it's simply not what's happening here. Why draw the line if we know that we haven't crossed it? You have put forth two cases that seem obviously on the other side. This case seems obviously on the 'we good' side. Would you say A/B testing means 'users are pawns'? I really disagree with that. Again, this is all in the interest of end users who have voluntarily installed this software, at least in part because of the secure reputation.