Is this snark meant to imply that you think that people shouldn't acknowledge a dilemma when one exists, unless they also have a solution to offer for said dilemma?

Google has nigh-on monopoly power over the browser ecosystem. Also, extensions are by-and-large malware. Making people aware that extensions are mostly malware helps Google to consolidate its monopoly; but also (obviously) helps people to avoid malware.

We don't want Google to control the Internet, and we don't want browsers to be full of malware. That's a dilemma. It has no obvious solution. But it's better to be aware of the dilemma — and so realize there is no easy solution — than to ignorantly push for one side or the other to "win."

At this point I'm convinced that there has to be a really strong opposition, or the Internet becomes Google's jail. We are basically seeing the dystopian side of "zero crime policies" acted out online as they slowly but surely evolve the definition of "malware" and erode away at our freedoms.

Google could be educating users to make their own responsible decisions, but it's far more profitable to keep them uninformed and feed them propaganda to maintain the paranoia that lets it monetise and take control away from them. Being ultimately an ad company, it thrives on deception.

and so realize there is no easy solution — than to ignorantly push for one side or the other to "win."

Twenty years ago, what Apple Google Microsoft do today with their software would be widely considered adware/spyware. One side has already won the battle; we can't let it win the war.

"Give me liberty or give me death," as the famous saying goes.