While I mostly agree with what you're saying here, I would like to point out that removing Google Search from an Android device can prevent a user from accessing other applications or specific features within (obviously Google developed apps). I guess that one really comes down to what we think working "just fine" is.
I very much agree with the general sentiment here about Microsoft's substantial hypocrisy and what a bad look it is, but isn't it likely to the benefit of consumers if these large companies are helping fuel legitimate antitrust lawsuits at each other?
Here is Firefox’s feature page for fingerprint blocking.
From what I understand about the specific setting you are referencing, the information typically used to build profiles is randomized each day.
My experience with fingerprint blocking in general has been cumbersome. The changes to time, window sizes, colors, etc., ultimately lowered the convenience and quality of life of my overall browsing experience.
I’m sure with the right setup, application, and mindset someone could find fingerprint blocking in it’s current form to be useful.
Yeah, I understand that hearing the same simple explanation of "you don't own it…" gets to be annoying. Especially in places like this where most people are pretty well aware of the situation.
The primary issue seems to be that enough people support this type of service willingly for the sake of convenience and are generally ignorant to the potential long-term issues. It feels pretty exploitative as a consumer.
But I don't see how making the distinction between ownership of the content vs the license is providing legwork for those services. In my mind, that distinction is key for understanding that the service is not for me. And I may just be looking at this too optimistically, but I would hope the same would be true for users who don't read the fine print, or happen to have not understood the issue until something like this post is presented.