There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect. We should demand such evidence before implying that this is the intended outcome.
If such is the goal, have at it with the headlines. They write themselves. "Advertising Giant Google Forcefully Breaks Ad-blockers in Chrome Update".
But until the evidence is there, we should be responsible about this.
Yes, but what's the point of this change, if it is only a side effect? I've read this thread and I haven't seen clear explanation what this change strives to achieve, other than breaking some popular anti-tracking/ad-blocking extensions.
So far there is only one rationale that could describe the motivation to make this change. Can you propose another possible motive? I am personally struggling.
What is your basis for this claim?
I am not an expert on this topic, but Gorhill is and has a demonstrated history of technical/privacy judgement.
Gorhill's comment makes it clear that impacting the functionality of blockers is an intentional change, as the proposal not only removes previous functionality, but also enshrines one particular and limited approach to blocking.
Edit: I would also note that "break" may suggest the possibility of altering blocking extensions such that they could keep working and maintain their present functionality. Gorhill's comment makes it clear that this is not the case.