I reckon that blocking ad blockers isn't some extra countermeasure here. It's actually right in line with what Manifest V3 and that new environment attestation system are all about. They're basically making sure that if you tinker with crucial bits of the JavaScript -- stuff they see as essential (like anti-adblock) -- you won't make it through the attestation and you'll get blocked.
They don't want to block all modifications because that would be a hindrance to many users, for example the visually impaired. However, anything affecting their bottom line will probably be blocked.
How that will affect Firefox? I don't know, maybe nothing will change for us, or perhaps Google will block Firefox altogether. We certainly know they're capable.
The Gecko Engine (Firefox), holds a user share of 4%. When compared to Chromium's (Google Chrome and its clones) whooping 72% (roughly) user share, it's clear that Firefox has limited relevance to their business strategy.
In case someone's wondering about cheaper options; Samsung 980 500GB NVMe M.2 costs as much as £32 GBP (~40 USD), and 1 TB version is £52 GBP (~65 USD).
That's not true at all, though. I can see only the basic information, such as:
Page load time
Number of visitors per country
Browser header and user agent
Referral (if any)
That's all there is to it. I don't have access to IP addresses, location data, or behavioural information. I only have access to the necessary information that enables my website to function seamlessly.
I employ VPN, TOR, and additionally, I manage sites utilizing CloudFlare. I can tell you this much: There aren't many alternative services that safeguard your website and gather statistics while respecting the privacy of the end user. CloudFlare even provides onion routes for TOR users, which I've naturally activated for my website. Thus, the issue doesn't rest with CloudFlare; it's a tool. The true issue lies with the webmasters abusing their power and using overzealous rulesets.
They could easily apply the same rulesets by utilizing nginx to proxy the traffic and implementing blocks on their side, avoiding CloudFlare altogether. The only distinction would be the increased expenses and a different host, nothing more.
Centralization is an issue, but it's not Cloudflare to blame, it's the ISPs and governing bodies. Consider this: who's the one who initiated the initial block in the first place?
I don't see the need to vilify Cloudflare. So far, they have shown nothing but respect towards net neutrality, fighting against bad internet practices (like Google), and even standing up to ISPs and governments to protect their users, whether they're pirates or not.
They have been around long enough (10+ years) to let you judge them and their services through their actions, not rumours.