[tredre3]

> [...] the fact that this isn't the case really says it all about how it's not the "user agent" anymore. [...] yes it breaks a lot of sites, but then you should ask yourself if the content was really worth reading in the first place!

Users want websites to work. The agent excludes a feature that, you admit, break most websites.

Yet you find it puzzling and anti-user behavior? Can you elaborate?

Would you be okay if it was built-in but disabled by default and hidden behind a setting or a flag?

[rep_lodsb]

Maybe websites should work without loading megabytes of scripts from third-party servers? I think that should be disabled unless you opt-in.

Also browsers by default using a blocklist from some company, and showing a giant scary warning and contacting their server when the user deliberately navigates to an URL that is on that list. That should be opt-in as well, rather than something that just happens and is considered acceptable.