Restricting what users can do for their own "safety" is what gives us walled gardens such as iOS.
I use Firefox precisely because I can (or, rather, could) override basically all browser functionality with addons, without having to set up a custom build server and apt repo myself.
Where by "safety" you mean "the most secure mainstream computing platform currently available, setting a standard to which other platforms approach only asymptotically and with significant end-user effort".
Obviously, I can't end decide this debate, such as it is, in a single comment (or, likely at all, with an acolyte!). But someone should get the message into the tech message board bubble that in the modern software security world, the controversial argument to make would be that iOS isn't the most secure OS out-of-the-box.
The safest computing platform is an airgapped 386, that doesn’t make it useful.
In the same way, iOS may be safe, but entirely useless for many people’s use cases.
And additional, safety is entirely orthogonal to restricting choice. You can have a walled garden that is insecure, e.g. the Amazon Kindles, or you can have an open system that is secure, e.g. OpenBSD.
Power users can hack and compile their own build. But you just want to complain on the internet.
So I don't see why the rest of us should have to endure your specific, less secure world view on software.
For example, your pitch certainly doesn't entice me yet you act like its necessity is self-evident. Maybe it's just time for you to find a browser that suits you instead of replying to every post that disagrees with you.
I use Firefox precisely because I can (or, rather, could) override basically all browser functionality with addons, without having to set up a custom build server and apt repo myself.