It seems reasonable to argue that fighting Google's browser monopoly justifies Mozilla helping enable the search monopoly for limited periods of time through de

It seems reasonable to argue that fighting Google's browser monopoly justifies Mozilla helping enable the search monopoly for limited periods of time through default search agreements. Or you could reasonably argue that the default search payments Mozilla takes are way less harmful to competitors than other things Google does, like scraping data from third party sites and presenting it above search results. I'm not sure if I agree, but you could definitely argue these things. Interestingly, Mozilla never comes right out and makes these arguments in its blog post. I guess maybe they imply them. I honestly am not sure if this is because any statement on this has to be heavily vetted by lawyers, or if, as some people will surely suggest, they are afraid of offending Google. (I don't really think they are? But maybe I'm wrong....)