What I'd say is that today, few people bat an eyelash if a researcher does a detailed writeup of how a vulnerability and its exploit work (for instance, look at the Google security blog). That wasn't true in the 1990s: if a company of Google's stature had published something like that, it would have been controversial and newsworthy.

I'd suggest FD prevailed because it's relatively safe to publish vulnerabilities today; in fact, it's a career booster.

During the FD debate, there were "important" people suggesting that all vulnerabilities be routed to organizations like CERT, which had as a charter the concealment of vulnerability details.