I'm not sure I actually agree with this argument, to be clear. I don't even know that I think the CEO does all that much; Elon Musk is the CEO of like three or four companies while also leading a government agency, indicating to me that "CEO" is not a difficult job, so I don't know that we necessarily need "the best" CEO anyway.
Mozilla does not need to find future possibilities, it got its goals handed to it by Marc Andreessen via Netscape: create and maintain a browser. The task of a non-profit CEO is to make sure the company remains funded. This takes a different type of person, someone who has or manages to create contacts within places where money is to be found. The last series of Mozilla CEOs saw this differently, these women convinced themselves that they were there to 'change the world' by means of pushing ideologically loaded programs and propaganda onto it. They considered the true reason for being of their organisation - create and maintain a browser which competes against the duopoly by giving control back to the user - no more than a means to get the funding for their ideological crusade. They also increased their own piece of the pie markedly in the process in some strange realisation of Orwell's All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than the others quote.
I don't think anyone is accusing the Mozilla CEO of "stealing" the money.
But from a strictly business standpoint, it’s a bit of an absurd position
But now every company thinks they can force everything on customers (idiotic ideas like "self-care"), the government, or even just the environment, usually doing enormous damage for 1/100th of that damage in gains.
At least we can rest assured of one thing: this trend WILL end. Through rational thinking? Through tears? Through violence? Through total catastrophe? That's the question. But end it will. Guaranteed.
