[omnimus]

Could you elaborate on what you mean? Firefox has become ~5% browser i don't understand what "pushing even more centralisation on Firefox" means. It looks to me that currently more firefox users = decentralisation more than centralisation. Do you mean the past when it was major browser?

[loup-vaillant]

The web is fundamentally client-server, a naturally centralising model. The problem is less how diverse the clients are, the problem is how few servers we use. You could have a hundred browsers with 1% market share each, it wouldn't prevent us from being Alphabet's puppets.

Technically, most of the online applications we use today don't have to be centralised. Email, social networks, blogs, even videos, could all be hosted on "grandma ready" peer to peer systems. Why they aren't has more to do with how we shaped the market forces. (Market forces didn't come out of thin air. A big centraliser was the political decision to let our bandwidth be asymmetric.)

[J_tt]

Firefox even allows you to host your own history/tab syncing, Mozilla had very little choice besides adding these centralised features in order to even attempt to compete with chrome.

[Jonnax]

It's really weird. Firefox has such a tiny marketshare now where WebKit based browsers dictate what happens.

Also whenever there's any positive news about the browser people always like to bring up pocket, that ARG misstep or how their CEO is a victim (Use brave!!!)

[qplex]

Is it? Pretty much every Android device has a WebKit (Chrome) based browser installed by default.

[dragonwriter]

Chrome is Blink, not WebKit. They are historically connected, but forked due to major differences in vision.