Same, if a website requires less protection and I really want to see that content, I just make the effort to lower my config, with high suspicion tho.

Agreed. Recently a number of 'news' sites have become hostile enough with the advertising/tracking/etc efforts that I'm now met with a page displaying nothing but "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker" when visiting them. Especially in modern times, nothing much of value has been lost by simply removing them from my occasional browse list.

so if your bank doesn't work. Do you switch banks? If your apartment portal doesn't work do you move? If your government sites don't work do you move countries?

They'll probably say they just use cash

US citizens are legally allowed in-person and traditional mail services for all the examples you listed. It boils down to coercion protection. You can't force me to contact google's servers if I don't want to, in order to access legally protected services.

Lots of www users are getting fingerprinted no doubt

But it's not difficult to avoid giving away unnecessary details used to create fingerprints, it's just that few people care to do it

I don't use a browser to make HTTP requests, so I have almost full control over fingerprints. There's no Javascript, cookies, CSS or images. No graphics. I use different combinations of headers, usually only Host and Connection because that's all that's needed. I use different UA values if a UA header is required, I use various TLS libraries, I can manipulate the client hello

Of course anyone can collect a fingerprint but not all fingerprints indicate a worthy ad target. I avoid ads 100%. There are probsbly "bots" that send more details than me

"OHTTP" sounds like the dumbest idea I have heard in a while. That's an opinion, everyone has one. "Oblivious" is certainly the right word. It's aimed at oblivious people in hopes they will think the problem is solved and continue to send excessive amounts of detail that can be used to create fingerprints