Indeed Bitcoin don't need to be like that. After all I agree with those important points you raised here. Good aspects to look at is there's no one could have full control on Bitcoin.

So even if there's some threat about possible changes that can affect the community, that situation will be implemented only if the node operators agree to enforce that.

The incident happen way back 2014 on Ghash, actually shows the risk is true or exist. But that situation also highlight the resilient of Bitcoin. Then the reason why its been called as the best decentralized coin. Bitcoin resist to any manipulative acts done by manipulators and this coin always function independently.

Questions like these are what is expected of a newbie to ask, because they don't know it, but also taking a bold step to research online and learn to know why bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency is as important as what is expected of them to do, and the fact we always remain that bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and cannot be censored irrespective of the government regulation or the approach people are giving it.

Okay! Let me answer you literally. Developers control bitcoin... But;

They are not the developers from only US, and neither are they Developers from Russia.

Friend, they are not Micheal Saylor's developers So, there's no cause for alarm.

You too can be a developer, you too can run a node, you too can contribute in the decision making.

Even if we all agree with you that developers control bitcoin, they are not centralized developers.

That's where the real decentralization comes from, no developer, exchange, or body can decide what Bitcoin will be like on their own without everyone agreeing to it. Everyone has a role to play and so if they all don't agree then the update doesn't become a rule, no one can forcefully make it a rule, if it will change Bitcoin's fundamental rule. Decentralization is basically when no one has full control over something and that's exactly how Bitcoin is, no single person controls it and you can choose to run whatever you want, if you are not impressed with a certain update you can ignore it.

If you look at the OP structure of posts, it's so obvious that the main objective of the question was directed at Bitcoin Core, when in fact there are a couple of other Bitcoin implementations, but they don't have wide adoption like Bitcoin Core. Seems like some people don't even know how Bitcoin Core became so adopted, the developers that are managing core didn't create core from scratch, it was an improve version of Bitcoin which was used back then.

I think some of the people that are raising this questions and debate over and over actually know but they choose to act like they don't know must of the things. You can choose to use core or not, it is your choice, there are many other implementations, go make it popular and influence people to use it. If they trust it enough, people will use it but core must survive.

No, they don't. It would be nice if you read more and answer based on knowledge, not feeling.

Anybody can make his own Bitcoin node software (whether from scratch or from the git repo). Nowadays you no longer even need programming skills, an AI agent can help you out.
Or one can take and use an older version if he wants to and doesn't like whatever feature.

As long as the client doesn't break the consensus, it's just fine.
And in the same way, the devs can make whatever change they want in the code, but that doesn't automatically mean that anybody would want to use the new client/version.
Any significant change is being prepared carefully exactly because of this. Changes are signaled, certain rules are being applied, and only if the vast majority of clients agree with the change it will become the new standard.

So while the devs can have some persuasive power given their knowledge, ultimately the nodes, the users are the ones who approve a change. It looks pretty decentralized to me.