Until that day, it's reasonable for people to appeal to centralized Web2 entities to use their control to fix a problem inherent to centralized Web2 services.
Actually, I'd love for cryptobros to try to make a browsers on their own, just for the lulz. I'm guessing it fails at about... eh maybe they'll make a CSS parser before there's a rug pull on BrowserCoin
"If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot."
The parent comment substantiates the claim, by citing Brave's ENS integration, and the lack of a need for a .link relay to access .eth domains when using it.
Cryptobros have this tendancy of being very obvious in their cult-like behaviour.
A developer going to prison, and a relay failing because he couldn't update the registration, is a far cry from a developer's signing keys being passed onto a malicious replacement who then includes removal of Web3 functionality in a browser update that users approve.
>>This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
That's completely irrelevant, as the risk you describe is just as present in Web2. Risk is strictly reduced by removing the reliance on Web2 relays, the risk of browser hijacking notwithstanding.
>>Web3 boils down to "we've decentralised it, which is inconvenient, so you can find links to all of the decentralised bits in this one convenient central location, so just go there".
I mean that's what the early Web was like, with people going to centralized mainframe computers to access it. Any technology will take time to deploy, and its full benefits will be largely unrealized while it has low adoption rates and primitive tooling.