When they make incorrect claims on what Net Neutrality is, or say blatantly false things that benefit the telcoms, then you can't blame one for thinking that those people are shilling.
You mix proximate and ultimate purposes/causes. Mozilla wants a free internet, that's the ultimate purpose, but considering all the current social, political, and economical reality, its proximate purpose is to oppose the FCC's change in regulation.
Arguing that somehow Mozilla "fights for", as in ultimately wants the amount of regulatory burden to grow, for its own sake, it foolish and ignorant at best, but very much seems like a bad faith argument.
"foolish and ignorant" you really cant help it can you? The mental contortions necessary to pretend such a simple to verify statement is not true are shockingly common.
Yes, Mozilla is "fighting for" (aka spending time and resources on) _adding_ regulation to the internet.
They don't spend time and resources to "add regulation", they spend resources to have an open Internet.
Currently the path toward that is doing something against browser monoculture and doing something about the actions of the new FCC.
The FCC changed to a different regulatory regime, which is inadequate, hence Mozilla tries to get back to the previous one.
You can try to measure up regulation with some kind of one-dimensional measure, and claim that Mozilla wants "more", but that's completely missing the point.
You can also say that Mozilla would not be okay with a totally unregulated Internet, because it'd take decades for the ISP market to solve the short term problems, that doesn't mean they wouldn't like a plan that phases out regulation where markets are healthy.
