That's the thing, it shouldn't be a business practice at all. Browsers are part of the Internet infrastructure and that should not be treated like any other business but be regulated enough to ensure anyone gets fair use of the infrastucture and should rely primarily on public funding.

The Internet being global makes this challenging, and almost all countries (including so-called democracies) wanting to drink as much authoritarian juice as they can get away with does mean that there is plenty of risk here as well. But letting one or a few giant megacorporations entirely dicate the primary intrastructure for information interchange is so much worse.

Firefox, with its full complement of full-time developers, could stay alive with a tiny fraction of what Mozilla earns in a year. Most of Mozilla's work is tangential to Firefox at best.

Surely there's space in the browser market for a model akin more to how Wikipedia operates.

> Surely there's space in the browser market for a model akin more to how Wikipedia operates.

Donations by corporations, and edited by powerhungry users (ryulong) and bots?

OK so you do want a business model, it's just a terrible one.

Sounds better than a black-hole cryptocurrency where the devs steal 30% of your transaction 'because they can'

This is part of the problem. Mozilla is diverging too much into dead ends. Instead of focusing on what they do best, Firefox.