Not recommending Chrome is the way to go. There was a time where developers only tested against IE, built features on top of IE, and there didn't seem any way t

Not recommending Chrome is the way to go. There was a time where developers only tested against IE, built features on top of IE, and there didn't seem any way to defeat the garbage associated with IE. But people recommended Firefox anyway for most browsing since it was a better experience on the open web. Eventually it up ended the dominance by giving a better browsing experience except when forced to use IE through bad code, which eventually forced more developers to improve the experience outside of IE. I personally never stopped using Firefox for Chrome, since there was always some extension that just didn't work quite as well on Firefox for the longest time. I've always found it worked it well. A popular opinion of a vocal contingent of users on this site always say that Chrome is so fast, without any benchmarks other than their personal feelings for the most part. If Google is going to be openly hostile to extensions like UBlock working as intended I really wonder if they would feel Chrome is much faster if the developers of such extensions stopped looking for work arounds in an actively hostile environment and simply let them experience the garbage that is the current state of the web. They've already shown their hand as being a terrible steward of the web by blocking extensions like AdNauseum that try to destroy all the tracking and privacy violations they've created. I personally believe all the people who don't have their jobs tied to creating ad garbage would do another exodus. Although I'm sure a vocal minority would create noise on sites like this since their jobs are tied to making the world a worse place.