Ganbat

Some further important context, the 'comparison' Judicial Watch made to come to this conclusion was based on, on one side, 'the most recent voter registration data for counties' and on the other, a math-based population estimate collected over the course of five years.

It's kind of like claiming that Johnny, age eighteen, is a different person from Johnny, age thirteen, based on height difference.

Edit: A better analogy might be standing in front of Johnny, taking off your glasses, and then demanding the blurry blob tell you what it did with Johnny.

The only example I can think of off the top of my head is something I'll have to DM you.

Make no mistake, what Google is doing is absolutely dangerous. Malvertisements are definitely a thing. Back in 2010, I got a virus from an ad on a meme site that just went through and trashed my hard drive.

It's unfortunate that there are use cases out there where Chrome is absolutely required. Firefox can't display large directories, for instance. It'll lock up while chromium browsers work fine.

was and still is

Me when I lie.

While that's a better solution on paper, it's naive. Even if you change it 100% of the time, if you need these measures to make people comply now, you'll need them then, too. You can tell people whatever you want, but the fact is, they're going to put themselves first most of the time. The guy who fucked around and made himself late for work is always gonna prioritize getting there on time no matter what until that clearly represents further hardship.

The headline is slimy

Are you referring to the use of the word "killshot"? Otherwise, the headline says exactly the same thing.

Its offline installers 'cannot be taken away from you'

No implication of outright ownership, just that they can't take away the offline installers. I mean, I guess it doesn't outright say "that you've already downloaded," but given the length, I'd say that's a passable omission.