However, if you'll permit me to suggest one, I don't think getting the government involved is a bad idea at all. Google is financially successful not because of their browser but because of tracking-based advertising, a largely unrelated market. They use that funnel of cash to expand into a separate market, that of the browser, in order to cement their position of power in web advertising. This sort of anti-competitive behaviour is exactly why antitrust regulations exist.
Your "Harrison Bergeron" allusion is almost a total non-sequitor. Nobody suggested hobbling Google because of their success. It's because of the damage they are doing to the web. The OP gave many examples of this that you seem to have ignored.
I saw no examples of Google's evil from the OP
> Approved bundles,
what is this?
> no URLs,
This is from Apple, not Google. Chrome is just following what Safari has been doing for years.
> everything hosted on AMP
Arguable either way
> and deeply embedded ads.
not sure what this or how it's evil
Happy to be enlightened
So your solution seems to be hobble the successful company so the weaker companies can compete? Maybe we should also prevent strong athletes from using their strengths and skills because other people don't have the same strengths and skills? Should we prevent smart people from using the brains because some people's brains don't function as well?
Maybe there's a different argument against Chrome but Google adding features to the Chrome is certainly not an argument against Chrome.