You can use Brave as your Chromium-based browser. It blocks ads natively, and I've not yet run into a site that required Chrome that didn't work on Brave.
Suggesting a browser because it has adblock preinstalled is like recommending a specific Linux distribution because it comes with LibreOffice out of the box: it doesn't matter for anyone who can click 2-3 buttons.
What matters to me is the part I can't influence that easily, and I simply prefer Firefox because it's not based on Chrome. Not something many browser developers can say nowadays.
But if you need Chrome for certain sites that only support Chrome, then giving Chrome the middle finger by using a non-Chrome Chrome seems like the best of two evils. I realize that sites only supporting Chrome is terrible and shouldn't be a thing, but sometimes it really can't be avoided.
I say this as someone who uses 99% Firefox, 1% Chrome... I had never thought about this point I'm making before.
How sure are we that Brave will not break also with these new changes? And also, how sure are we that Chromium isn't secretly tracking users already? I don't have time to read the source, and don't trust that many people that say it's all a-okay.
For the entire history of the internet, there have been sites that only work properly with the dominate browser, starting with Netscape and then, famously, IE6.
I'm always confused when people imply this isn't the case or start demanding evidence. I'm bemused when they are surprised.
