It's not whataboutism because Mozilla's response to the WEI, IPA and other PATCG[1] and AntiFraudCG[2] proposals are closely intertwined and all reduce the control users have over their browser, their computers and their Internet experience to the benefit of a cartel of technology companies who receive a significant revenue stream from advertising and gatekeeping online commerce. How can Mozilla be committed to "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all."[3] and at the same time be participating in PATCG and AntiFraudCG proposals that have opposing objectives? Is there even one serious consideration given in any PATCG or AntiFraudCG proposal for impacts to accessibility, interoperability, openness of the Internet (including to new market entrants wanting to implement a new phone, computer, browser, advertising business, etc)?
Additionally, AntiFraudCG proposals such as WEI focus on benefits they provide to PATCG proposals. For example, a Googler with historical interest in minimising inflated view counts on YouTube[4] (a benefit to YouTube's advertisers) wrote earlier this year a proposal to AntiFraudCG including:
"By transmitting signals of legitimacy from the device’s platform, such as if the device is emulated or rooted, publishers and their technology partners could use this information in part to determine if traffic is invalid. They could then choose appropriate actions like flagging advertising actions as suspicious"[5]
[1] https://github.com/patcg
[2] https://github.com/antifraudcg
[3] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
[4] https://security.googleblog.com/2014/02/keeping-youtube-view...
[5] https://github.com/antifraudcg/proposals/issues/8