I mean, that argument starts to wade in to the Mozilla foundation as a whole, and what their purpose is, and that’s a giant kettle of fish.

Theoretical game. They lowball Google on how much Google pays them. How do people react? I don’t see them doing that and say, “Man, I’m glad Firefox is reducing Google’s influence over them”. I see them making a thread about how Firefox is giving Google a discounted rate because they’re all corrupt technofacists.

The core problem there still exists IMO. Funding.

What we really need is a reasonable way for open source, free, software, that exists for the good of the whole, to get money. But that has it’s own kettle of fish, where does it come from, how big is big enough to get some, what if they charge for support, how open is open enough.

Something something, seize the means of production, communism, etc.

Ok idealist.

What is your alternative funding stream for Mozilla?

It’s bad.

Is it worse than the advertising owned browser that gives your information directly to said advertiser?

It supports both online co-op as well as split screen with multiple controllers; at least it does on PC.