I'm sorry if I upset you, I was just trying to understand your position better. Personally I don't feel like this example undermines the whole argument, its an acknowledgment of a limitation of the writers perspective. It also looks to have been updated.

"That’s because OverDrive, a private corporation, has a monopoly on managing the availability and distribution of ebooks and audiobooks for government-funded public libraries in North America. (I looked for exact current numbers, but turns out that would require the time and resources of a professional journalist.1 Best I could do: as of December 2019, OverDrive controlled digital lending for “more than 95% of public libraries in the US and Canada”.2)"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe that's because it's not really Firefox, everything on apple devices is forced to use safari, all you do with the "Firefox" installation is change the ui.

I've heard this a couple of times but never an explanation why. What is the moral problem with Mozilla?

I feel like I'm not reading the same article as you are. Can you share an example of where they undermine their own argument? This seems like a pretty well researched and thought out article.

They clearly state their interpretation of enshitification and it seems to me like a valid generalisation and to be applied correctly.