I think you're conflating too many things in your argument. I'm not against evolution, and there's plenty of good uses for most of the recent browser developmen

I think you're conflating too many things in your argument. I'm not against evolution, and there's plenty of good uses for most of the recent browser developments in the last decade. Heck, I love what you can do in interactive python notebooks, and there's plenty of very successful pages that use modern technologies at their finest. But it's a very small minority. So small, in fact, that a "whitelist-based" approach, such as disabling webfonts everywhere but selected sites, has a net-positive effect: it also works on the websites that choose good fonts, because those websites are ironically also the websites that gracefully degrade and/or use html semantically. Similarly for other features. Many websites, to put it simply, are simply "badly styled" (I don't like to use "designed", because designed would imply some tuning based on a real usage pattern). I also don't think that users that think that way are in minority: it cannot be that "reader" extensions (which do - in essence - exactly what has been described in the manifesto!) got bundled into browsers as a selling point. If there was no need, they wouldn't be bundled at all. Clearly, there are some non-insignificant amount of people that see this as a plus.