Right, it's not a conspiracy. When there are multiple participants in a forum, and one participant has already raised a point that you agree with, saying "I agree with so-and-so's point about..." is the normal way to do things.
What would be a conspiracy - and a genuine problem - is if Mozilla were repeating Google's line because they were there to advocate for Google's beliefs instead of what they thought was best, i.e,. the group was stacked in Google's favor. But the evidence we have doesn't permit us to conclude that this is happening or even likely.
As a simple example, Mozilla and Google tend to reach the same conclusions about whether a new CA should be trusted or an old CA should be distrusted. But this isn't because one is telling the other what to do; it's because they have similar standards and expectations of CAs.
(It would also be weird, and perhaps a conspiracy and a problem, if Google were not a participant in the W3C and Mozilla felt that its role was to represent Google's thoughts instead of its own. But that's not what's happening here, either.)
Comments
Right, it's not a conspiracy. When there are multiple participants in a forum, and one participant has already raised a point that you agree with, saying "I agree with so-and-so's point about..." is the normal way to do things.
What would be a conspiracy - and a genuine problem - is if Mozilla were repeating Google's line because they were there to advocate for Google's beliefs instead of what they thought was best, i.e,. the group was stacked in Google's favor. But the evidence we have doesn't permit us to conclude that this is happening or even likely.
As a simple example, Mozilla and Google tend to reach the same conclusions about whether a new CA should be trusted or an old CA should be distrusted. But this isn't because one is telling the other what to do; it's because they have similar standards and expectations of CAs.
(It would also be weird, and perhaps a conspiracy and a problem, if Google were not a participant in the W3C and Mozilla felt that its role was to represent Google's thoughts instead of its own. But that's not what's happening here, either.)