Their separate point was ignored because it was an irrelevant tangent.

> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.

This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?

> And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil.

I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference is so negligible at this point that the only sign I would is the fact I'm still using FF due to momentum (as well as Ladybird not being ready from prime time yet).

FF/Mozilla has proven itself to be controlled opposition, so I'm not very interested in games of "lesser-of-two-evils" abuser logic that has infected politics and many other spheres in a race to the bottom.

> Do we trust them or don't we?

GP trusts them for reviewing external extension code, and ensure that it does not contain malware, but not for not inserting exception to their own telemetry if they wrote the code themselves.

Or, more likely, they feel that having two independent actors collaborating on the extension (one by writing and the other by reviewing) yields a more trustworthy outcome than either actor on their own.