@someonetellmetosleep@queer.party That's the thing, though - why would you put in all of the effort to create a new, better browser... when Firefox is right there, and it's Good Enough and the degradation is slow?

This is the core problem with controlled opposition; it is Good Enough by some metric that gets slightly worse every year, but never too fast to freak people out and create an opportunity for a critical mass of "people who want to start their own thing" to exist.

So yes, no other browser options exist. But why is that? Because the existing options are Good Enough. And yes, the standardization process is thoroughly captured. But why is that? Because no other browsers exist and the power is heavily centralized in Google and, yes, Mozilla. And Mozilla has every reason to go along with Google, and so functionally all the power lies with Google.

Mozilla is never going to throw Google out of the standards process, they're never going to go against them, because Google will just steamroll over them and this will only hurt Mozilla. So a third party is needed to do that - but there are none left, because you cannot gain any traction on *creating* one, because again, Firefox is Good Enough.

What I'm trying to say here is that all the issues you are describing likely exist *because* of Mozilla being controlled opposition. They cannot provide any counterweight, and they cannot fix the issue, they can only discourage others from even trying to.

And yes, I *do* expect that to improve when Mozilla goes under, simply because there is a vacuum, and the problem becomes obviously visible, and that makes it a lot easier to mobilize people.

Will that happen quickly? No, probably not, which is the usual problem with accelerationist views, which is why I'm trying to put out early warning here, to hopefully mitigate or eliminate the timespan during which there are zero alternatives.