This sort of argument in defense of so-called "tech" company "default settings" shenanigans has been called out in recent litigation. Courts are becoming aware of the power and significance of "default settings".

It's this idea of "overkill", or other simialr rationales, that I am referring to in the original comment. Just enough "friction" to stop people from changing things. Not worth the trouble, people may think. And this works year after year. Amazing. Browser vendors were not the first in the computer industry to utilise this type of tactic, but it's a fine example.

Not sure who "you" refers to in the parent comment: me or a hypothetical person. If it's the former, I use a text-only browser that neither auto-load resources nor runs Javascript, along a localhost-bound proxy that strips or adds cookies. This is perfect for me. Both software I can change and quickly re-compile at any time. If it's the later, and "you" refers to a hypothetical person, then I cannot comment on behalf of such persons.

What I do know is that most users do not change default settings.

Overall I think "browsers" are overextended and overrated. I use them as HTML readers. I prefer separate programs for different tasks instead of one program for every task.

The so-called "modern" web browser, a "nightmare pile of code" indeed.