[ehsankia]

> handful of global platforms have a veto on what software we are allowed to use.

Wouldn't Mozilla count in one of those global platforms? I'm not sure what this "handful" includes and why it doesn't include Mozilla. It is by many metrics the 2nd most used browser.

[larkeith]

Mozilla has nowhere near the scale of Google. Google could, if they wanted, functionally kill a website or business by blocking their site, removing them from maps, disabling their Gmail addresses, and kicking them off Google Docs, and even in the unlikely event of massive public backlash (realistically only possible if the story goes viral), they have the resources and userbase to easily weather the storm - it is infeasible for most people to abandon Google's services, even should they be so inclined, and there is no other real way to impact their decision-making.

Meanwhile, Mozilla has a single browser with a minority of the userbase. Negative user feedback is much more important, as Firefox is much more easily replaced (no Google login or linked services), and they have nowhere near the scope of potential impact that Google does, let alone resources to back it up.

[jjeaff]

And don't forget that Mozilla is also a non-profit organization that doesn't have quite the same goals as Google/alphabet, the for profit mega Corp.

[drb91]

Mozilla should be counted, but we need as many players in the space as we can find.

They also seem do have more transparent interests and incentives—they don’t run an ad network (and i don’t begrudge them the google royalties in the least).

[fauigerzigerk]

Mozilla is not one of the dominant players and Mozilla has a different agenda.

So they bring a bit of diversity to the table that makes us less dependent on one specific type of vested interests.