As far as I can tell the story was something along the line of: 1. design push notifications as technical solution but not the necessary UX/UI and any abuse mi

As far as I can tell the story was something along the line of: 1. design push notifications as technical solution but not the necessary UX/UI and any abuse mitigations making them the perfect tool for abuse (both Chrome and FF, on Windows I only have seen Chrome impl. and it was horrible) 2. oh dang it get's abused 3. add abuse mitigations 4. which do not really mitigate the abuse at all but do prevent any proper use The the 4th point is the wtf something seems fishy point. If they would outright removed it arguing "too much abuse" I would not have been surprised. If they had tried to add proper abuse migrations and failed I would not have been surprised. But they added migrations which very obviously would not fix the most common wide spread abuse but would kill most proper use. And where that isn't a unexpected result, but a very easily predictable result. And that is what is strange because it is as if they kept it around as a pretense at the cost of a lot of non technical users "safety/experience" and iff that was intentionally I would guess it's to cause enough damage so that external institutes like consumer safety groups ask for it to be removed. Which if that would be the case would be quite disgusting. Firefox could fix that by fixing the UI/UX abuse issue (it's all about things outside of the web standard, i.e. doable without changing the standard). But as far as I can tell they do not care, and either implemented it for feature compatibility with chrome or I think the now gone FirefoxOS.