This is mental gymnastics. If Mozilla were following Google's orders we would not need to resort to phrases like "anticipatory obedience" to describe a neutral non-position; if they were following Google's orders, they would have simply endorsed it, end of story, and then they would have revoked that endorsement in lockstep with Google as well, which they didn't.

Again, when exactly has Google endorsed JPEG XL? When did they promise to ship it in Chrome stable? Sure, they had it in development as an experimental feature at first, but so did Firefox.

The way I read it, both companies were tentatively interested until Google said they changed their mind, and shortly after Mozilla decided they didn’t really care. Correlation doesn’t imply causality, but their positions followed a somewhat similar trajectory at the very least. (In contrast with, say, Apple.)

I just don’t see where you keep getting the idea that Google was at some point far more supportive of JPEG XL adoption than Mozilla was.

>neutral non-position

This wasn't the case. Mozilla even used similar wording as Google did.

Mozilla >We might find it necessary to support the format if usage becomes more widespread, but that will be a product decision

Google >There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue experimenting with JPEG XL

(this was retarded too, but wcyd if you are forced to say this)