There is a positive feedback cycle leading to polarization, and it works both ways. The more people assume the worst, the more likely they are to criticize with only a cursory understanding what's going on, and the more that justified criticism gets lost in the noise, leading to further communication breakdown as more people stop listening. In the worst case, certain things become "common knowledge" that nobody bothers checking anymore.
Breaking that cycle requires putting effort into understanding both sides and going beyond quick comments.
Breaking the cycle can't be done by only one side.
If good maintainers aren't put in contact with good critiques, then they'll eventually assume every take on their work is purely reactionary. But in the same way, if good critics who take the time to write detailed critiques aren't listened to, then they'll eventually get tired and stop engaging.
One side can't put in all of the work, or we'll end up in the same exact situation within another year.
I've seen the conversation around Chrome degrade dramatically even over the past year or two. Back when Chrome accidentally broke web audio, the community was putting a lot of time into brainstorming possible solutions. You had authors behind some of the biggest games and platforms on the web trying to be constructive.
More recently with the V3 manifest, actual adblock developers from the most popular extensions on the store have weighed in, written performance tests, and shared thoughts. But they've been less willing to go out of their way to assume the best of the Chrome team than game developers were in 2018.
There's a very visible degradation of trust, and an assumption that there's no point in engaging constructively with Google because Google just does not respond to criticism.
Back in 2018, I myself wrote up a massive blog post[0] going over the problems with Google's Web Audio changes. I was careful to assume the best of maintainers, that they really did have the best interest of the web in mind, and that they really were trying to make something great. However, I pointed out:
> These mistakes create a narrative undercurrent that will undermine Google's future efforts to get developers to trust them when they're forced to make difficult decisions... Given enough examples of Google dismissing concerns about its pet projects, the public will simply stop believing that the company cares.
So now in 2019, I'm not going to write a massive blog post going into extensive detail about why obfuscating URLs is a bad idea, because I've fallen victim to the same thought pattern I warned about above. I don't believe that Google cares, and I have better uses of my time.
Why should I waste my time writing this stuff, when I know it's not going to make a difference, and when I know Google is just going to do whatever they want anyway? Why should someone like Gorhill waste their time building detailed breakdowns of an extension API, if there's no chance of getting that API decision reversed?
None of this just arbitrarily happened -- even two or three years ago, developers used to engage with the Chrome team with a lot more patience and a lot more good faith. There are still a lot of members of the community that aren't polarized, they're just tired. And if there was any evidence that Chrome developers were willing to listen to people like Gorhill or Ashley, those people would still be willing to step up.
Yes, I agree that it seems like a lot of work with little payoff. When you're just one person in a large audience, I think it's realistic to assume your influence is pretty limited, and the developers are going to do what they think is right.
I think not doing your homework is fine (I am often lazy about this) but it should be combined with open-mindedness and acknowledging uncertainty.
Breaking that cycle requires putting effort into understanding both sides and going beyond quick comments.