Yes, but as soon as it is accessible via the GUI, more and more people will start getting blurred Google Docs (and similar weird issues) without knowing how that happened - because that's already happening even with people who know enough to make changes in about:config.
I mean, you're just saying that if you don't dial it up to eleven, but just to nine, then you'll hit less breakage. Which, sure, but that's kinda my point: a usable browser needs to strike a balance, and that's exactly what Firefox is trying to do - which is really something different from "needing a 180-degree turn". Firefox by default is stopping way more tracking than e.g. Chrome, and guides users to installing e.g. uBO.
Also note that most breakage isn't immediately obvious. For example, if you turn on privacy.resistFingerprinting, then Google Docs will become blurred. However, by the time you see that, you won't be able to link that to the flipped config. This is the kind of breakage that many "hardening guides" cause, and by that, they eventually lead people to switch to Chrome, which is the opposite of what they're supposed to achieve.
And sure, Librewolf draws the line at a slightly different place than Firefox does. But the main difference is not sending data like hardware capabilities, crash stats, etc. to Mozilla - which don't threaten democracy or result in hyper-targeted ads, but do enable Mozilla to optimise the code for real-world use.
A Mozilla dependent on Google seeing value in Firefox sending searches their way is at minimum as good as one in which Mozilla doesn't exist and everybody uses Chromium-based browsers, by definition - and in practice, way better.
But yes, more non-Blink engines in use in general would also be a better world. Alas, that, too, isn't the world we live in.
But also keep in mind that it couldn't exist without Firefox/Mozilla existing. A world in which more people use Firefox over Chromium-based browsers is a better world.
This is so rude. You've done nothing for the guy (neither have I), and have probably used and benefited from his work (that we did not pay for) in some way - and then to single him out and ridicule him? There's an actual human on the other side there...
Well, there's a way to frame this as malicious. I'm not a fan of Brave, but it also installs, say, a spell checker without consent, or a Tor client. Sure, the code is there even if you don't use it, but... What's the actual harm?
I mean, yes, it could've been differently, and as I understand it they're going to. But as a user, how is your life worse with this than without this? What's the impact of something being installed but not running?
It's linked to your account. If you view YouTube without logging in, you should have no issues. You can use the Multi-Account Containers extension to log in selectively per tab, if you need to.