Google are they worthy of holding the keys to the internet?

I for one think there is at least a question about this, but I am not talking about censorship of thought even though that is also a very worthwhile discussion to have. I am talking about google's ability to control what technology will be available for the general public on the "open" internet. Do you know about jpeg xl? A new format for pictures on the internet designed to supersede pretty much all the available formats and also being royalty free unlike some of the available formats, really jpeg xl should have been a smash hit. Some of the proponents of the format facebook, intel, and adobe. That is the same adobe who is not generally in favour of open formats but they decided to support this one, I take this to mean that it was a generally good format with a lot of technical merit. It even had support in chrome and chromium although this was under a flag so not mainline support, that google elected to remove this support entirely rather than adding it in general baffles the mind.

I myself had not actually heard about this format until very recently, thanks to Brodie Robertsens
https://odysee.com/@BrodieRobertson:5/chromium-ends-jpeg-xl-before-it-even:0

So it turns out that google has an alternative format with less technical merit, that they want to support at the expense of the probably better format.

Google is using their position as a browser vendor to trash some competition to their own selected format whether or not what they are trashing is better or not, I think this is a strong condemnation of google as holders of the keys to the internet. Gate keeping technology to serve your own interest is a terrible thing, but it still seems that google will probably get away with this behaviour entirely without any reprimands.

Advertisers friend

while googles behaviour around killing jpeg xl seems bad this is not the only questionable behaviour google has been involved in beyond any alleged censorship, which I will not discuss in this post, another thing they are in progress with is the ending of adblockers a friend of many web users, blocking annoying ads is in general a good thing since these not only take up bandwidth better used for other purposes, they also have the very real potential to be trackers and build behavioural profiles of users at large.

Haven't we all heard about advertisement networks sending ads for baby products due to the behaviour of a users suggesting that she might be pregnant, and that the advertisers are in general right?

Or seen some evidence of a discussion besides a smart speaker or in a email in gmail turns out to have an effect on which ads you see ? While these might not be real they do have a creepy effect, and a reminder advertisers builds extensive profiles an users to generate more money for the people advertising through them.

I would say adblockers are a benefit to users, and googles work on making them function less well, could be seen as an open attack on users freedom to privacy.