[jdashg]

It's superficial analysis to assume that when Mozilla agrees with Google, it's about money. That's merely correlation.

Other people and organizations can disagree with your arguments in ways that you don't think are logical or sound, but that doesn't mean they aren't just based on different weights and criteria. It's not useful to assume the decision criteria, because it becomes too easy to declare yourself right yet be confused why other people don't recognize it.

Never simply attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but also never simply attribute to incompetence what can be explained by disagreement.

[barfbagginus]

The argument is that pressuring Mozilla is a valid second line of attack, on top of pressuring Google. That seems fairly benign, given that Google and Mozilla both have power in the browser ecosystem.

I don't see any assumptions about Mozilla's motive, or think it would be relevant to assume motive one way or another. The assumption is that Mozilla has power to help fuel JPEG XL adoption, so that pressure wouldn't simply be wasted.

Now, I'm not sure it has this power given its 3% browser market share. This might invalidate the particular argument.

That said, there are many valid reasons to give Mozilla execs grief, and many valid reasons to work to deconstruct Mozilla's leadership. So I don't mind if people do it over JPEG-XL, even if Mozilla's had zero power to affect JPEG-XL.

[kodabbb]

this is so toxic it's not even funny

[barfbagginus]

It's perfectly fine to be toxic and unfunny towards Mozilla's C-suite, kodabbb