Not really. Google has maybe the best security researchers in the world, most end users have no idea, Hacker News is not representative of the general population.

I am not saying it justifies locking down devices, but that's the kind of situation where I think a bit of friction is a good thing. For example having to connect your phone to a computer and run some command line tool (like for unlocking a bootloader). You still have your freedom, but it is also something you are less likely to do by accident. In the sideloading situation, it looks like you could make yourself a developer account and repack apps under your own identity, which is one of these high friction workarounds.

For F-Droid specifically, maybe they should negotiate with Google before going to the offensive. Maybe they did and it didn't work, but I think a good compromise would be to let F-Droid has a key to sign the apps they compile, making F-Droid accountable for the apps they distribute.

And by the way, Firefox is in a similar situation for extensions. Over the years, they made it really hard to install anything from outside the official Mozilla repository, citing security concerns. It is not just Google.

Yes, Google has much greater competency. But when their interests run counter to their users' interests, as in the particular case we're talking about where they are nuking F-Droid from orbit, thus depriving users of access to NewPipe and other apps that don't try to rip users off, that higher competency is a disadvantage, not an advantage.

Neither incentive alignment nor competency is sufficient without the other.

Even if you allow package distribution whitelists, and even if we allow Google, by virtue of essentially owning/steering Android to, by default, be on the whitelist in their distributions...

At some point you need to just let the user say "I'm OK with being accountable for the installation" and get out of the way.