IMO, this points out the inherent and unresolveable contradiction between browsers being a user-agent, and browsers being a precisely-specified execution environment for arbitrary applications. A browser that is built to operate in the interests of its user will not run code that is harmful to them, whether that's code to track them, code to mine bitcoin, or code to display advertisements. On the other hand, a browser that is compliant with the (largely advertising-company-defined) web platform standard will do all these things, and can't permit any user-agent features or extension mechanisms that would interfere with them. The web platform standard as we know it essentially specifies that the browser belongs to the website operator (within some sandboxing guarantees), not to the browser user. On the whole, I prefer that software I run on my computer belong to me; this makes using the web a necessary evil at best.
> The web platform standard as we know it essentially specifies that the browser belongs to the website operator (within some sandboxing guarantees), not to the browser user.
And that is precisely the problem. Once website operators get it through their thick heads that the browser is user property, not theirs, things might start to improve.
