Google is becoming one the worst web companies these days.

Every change they make to their services or platforms make it harder for people to block ads, or make more data go into Google services by default with no way out.

Top of my list:

1. Trying to kill the URL in chrome by eliding information and then forcing advanced users to install an extension that promotes Google services

2. Efforts to gimp advanced ad blockers with manifest V3

3. Changes to Android defaults to make apps enforce not trusting user based https certificates

4. Syncing and signing-in on chrome for Google accounts

5. Enforcing location based, filtered, web search results

6. Pushing non organic, paid, results in all other products except web search

1, 2 and 4 on your list are through chrome. Switch to Firefox. It is better in almost every respect (specifically, these items you mentioned but also many more) and has been for a while.

What's truly ironic is the browsers in question use QtWebEngine, which is based on Chromium/Blink. It even says so in the User Agent.

I find it ironic that I go to read an article about banning people from accessing content and get greeted with the following:

  Error 1005 Ray ID: 545442d6fa2aec4e • 2019-12-15 00:22:04 UTC
  Access denied
  What happened?

  The owner of this website (www.bleepingcomputer.com) has banned the autonomous
  system number (ASN) your IP address is in (XXXXX) from accessing this website.

I really miss the old internet that didn't discriminate against clients based on IP address/origin.

How is google avoiding anti-trust prosecution. I don't get how they can get away favoring their own product under another product to stifle competition. Imagine if Windows alerted you about insecurity and inferiority of GCP vs Azure when you visit sites that use GCP. Or a modal popup alert when you open chrome telling you how much faster and more secure Edge is. Refusing to run Firefox because it doesn't like it.

Why is google gettig a free pass in so many things?

Because the current regulators in the US don’t intervene in anti competitive behavior until it is deemed harmful for consumers. They don’t generally consider keeping prices low (in this case, zero) as harmful to consumers.

If anyone has an axe to grind it’s other browser developers and web service providers, and if they want they can bring a class action against google for anticompetitive behavior. But I suspect there’s too much for them to lose in a drawn out suit than to gain.

If google uses this behavior to for example make everyone use and support only chrome and tie their ad-targeting of the chrome user (google account) and dissuade using other search engines, would that not make it hard for other search platforms to compete by offering lower prices to consumers? I also worry how everyone these days has vendor locking on Chrome, if I use firefox I get lower quality content and Google has made it hard for devs to support non-chrome browsers, this hurts me as a consumer, although I find it hard to come up with a cash amount in damages.

I think this gets at the crux of it. If consumers aren't harmed directly, how do you quantify the impact of anti-competitive behavior and argue that it's "bad" and not "just business"?

I don't have an answer. I don't like Google's behavior here, and I don't like seeing vertical integration that cuts out potential disrupters since it stagnates innovation. But like has been seen for decades, vertical integration like this can often lower prices for consumers, and regulators have a tough time squaring that circle with what they can call tort.

Well, there is a such a thing as a non-monetary cost. I'm not sure if you are just describing the viewpoint of those who ignore such things, or whether you haven't thought of that.

I'm just parroting what I hear often about the FTC.

Don't most Linux users use Chrome and Firefox..?

Depends on who you ask there are plenty that use lynx too.

Sure, there are plenty of users that still use Windows XP, but I guess it doesn't make financial sense to support them.

The article has a click-baity headline that makes it seem like evil Google is banning users on Linux, while reality is pretty different.

That was my point.