”[…] I envy the worldview it's possible someone can take money from another and still maintain independence.”

Do you believe relying on our legal system is naive and idealistic?

What would be the non-idealistic view other than no structures can be trusted and that we live in a dictatorship?

Though of course there’s no telling how far we will eventually go in a trumpworld.

Mozilla Corporation takes money from Google for search placement. That doesn’t turn it into a subsidiary. Google doesn’t own it, doesn’t run its roadmap, and doesn’t ship its code. Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control.

On telemetry: you’re overstating it. Firefox ships with telemetry on, but it documents what it collects, lets users turn it off, and exposes most of it in about:config. Google Chrome ties into a much broader account system, sync stack, and ad network. Chrome doesn’t operate in isolation; it plugs straight into Google’s data ecosystem. Firefox doesn’t own an ad network to feed.

“Almost comparable” needs evidence. Comparable how? Volume? Type? Identifiability? Retention? Without specifics, the claim collapses into vibes.

The bigger difference sits lower in the stack: engine independence. Firefox runs on Gecko. Chrome runs on Blink. If you care about web monoculture, that matters more than marginal telemetry deltas. When one engine dominates, web standards start drifting toward what that engine implements. We watched that happen in the IE6 era.

As for uBlock Origin: yes, it’s a major reason people choose Firefox. But browser architecture shapes how long powerful content blockers survive. Chrome’s extension model changes (Manifest V3) restrict what blockers can do. Firefox kept the older, more capable API. That choice signals priorities.

If your argument reduces to “both collect some data, so it doesn’t matter,” you flatten meaningful differences. The question isn’t purity. The question asks who controls the engine, who sets extension policy, and who benefits from surveillance at scale.

If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur structural distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.

Even if you use AI to actually produce the individual words and still edit the text afterwards to match your meaning, first of all it might be more work than just writing it yourself, and second, it's basically like having a partner to throw around ideas with.

So sure, you might be cheating yourself, and at the end I don't think AI is going to produce anything of such enormous original value that it would in itself threaten the value of, say, literature.

At the end of the day the results are what count to me. If you're using AI in a disciplined way to help you learn to write better, then all the best to you.