Nothing wrong with the first instance. I'd much rather Mozilla have independence and deal with one tiny advert.

At least they were "transparent" about the second one. But sending my browsing history to a company I've never heard of is a big ask. At least I can choose to have Chrome sync with Google, this wasn't ever asked.

You stance regarding mozilla and their willingness to betray the trust of their supporters makes no sense. How exactly is mozilla independent if they have to resort to all sorts of tricks to fund themselves?

All of their efforts to wean themselves of the Google cash have been not only pathetic failures, but also breaches of trust.

Many people and long time Firefox users felt back then that Mozilla did do something wrong.

You'd prefer that Mozilla could install any extension they want? You do realize that sets precedent that they're free to sell forced extension installs that run universally on every page?

Give an inch, take a mile. It's always like that every time by every single company in existence.

Yet you'd trust Chrome which send everything to Google...? Or Brave, which is a for profit in search of a revenue stream? Why? Wasn't AdBlock a good enough lesson?

I don't trust either. Just saying that Mozilla doesn't have a "proven record".