The thing to understand about the Chrome team is that they always believe that their technical goals are the real reasons for the choices that they make that people find abhorrent.
Internal incentives push and provide funding for initiatives that increase spying (for example) or improve Google Search ad revenue (as another example), but the engineers working on the implementations are thinking about the user experience justifications.
So if you try to challenge these decisions on the grounds that the feature is problematic, there is always a ready-to-go, knee-jerk reaction about the user-focused reason for the work.
This is, in many ways, very natural. There are good-enough user experience reasons for these features, and people like to feel proud of the work that they're doing.
Asking an engineer with very little direct control over Google's business to consider whether improving the single-sign-on experience for end users is also increasing the power and reach of Google's spying powers is asking a lot.
Asking an engineer with very little direct control over Google's business to consider whether improving the performance of web sites linked off of Google search is also privileging Google technologies is asking a lot.
I think we have the right to ask this of powerful engineers working at a powerful company.
But at the same time, direct attacks on individual Googlers that imply that they should obviously know better ignores the ways in which these features are internally justified (and sold) as user-experience improvements.
There are very real structural issues, and it would be wrong to imply that Googlers don't already grapple with them.
The most individual effective advocacy reminds Googlers of what they already know: that even if there are good user-focused justifications for the work they're doing, it may still have dangerous consequences.
(bleh, typo, I meant "the most effective individual advocacy")
