I have recently started to wonder whether we can really create a browser that can dethrone Google.<p>Ladybird tries that, but Ladybird has made several really questionable decisions and has various strange policies. Now I am biased here since I was banned for "trolling" (I dispute that claim completely), but the issues go deeper.<p>Take the following:<p><a href="https://github.com/ladybirdbrowser/ladybird" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/ladybirdbrowser/ladybird</a><p>Or rather:<p><a href="https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#issue-policy" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/blob/master/CONT...</a><p>"We reserve the right to reject issues and other interactions that appear to be motivated by bad faith.<p>Additionally, anyone found participating in social media brigading of Ladybird will be permanently banned from the project."<p>Why does the Ladybird team engage in pro-actively banning people they disagree with? Does this not defeat the purpose of an open web if Ladybird goes about censoring people?<p>And that's not the only issue here. A while ago they removed the ability, more or less, by people to report issues (or rather, contribute to the project) when they are outsiders. Or the "swift is great, we use it", then suddenly "Rust is great, we use it". A lot of this awkwardness has to do with Kling; I think it would be better if a browser would act in an agnostic manner rather than as a "brigading leads to perma-bans". That's a very user-hostile policy. Is it no longer possible to build a browser? You can't go about "we will dethrone chrome" while you pursue "brigaders will be perma-banned".