Firefox was originally the simplified, cut-down version of Seamonkey; Firefox has been on this trajectory of simplification since before Chrome or WebKit were invented.
> The whole "protect the users" mentality is IMHO misguided and dangerous
It's definitely dangerous - good intentions, dystopian sci-fi, etc. etc. - but I'm not sure if it's misguided.
I don't mind being forced to follow road rules, even if I find them inconvenient, because I benefit more from other people following them (personal safety, etc.) than I would from being allowed to do what I want.
I don't mind being forced to install security updates, even if I find them annoying, because I benefit more from other people installing security updates (more reliable infrastructure, fewer tech-support calls from family members) than I would from being allowed to do what I want.
I expect browser security is similar - I don't have exact numbers to hand, but it wouldn't surprise me if I'm better off being a bit restricted than I would be if everybody did what they wanted.
For the longest time, that's how it was. The browser at one end was called Chrome, and the one at the other was called Firefox.
while on the other hand you want to prevent uneducated users from screwing themselves over by accident
As the saying goes, "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
The whole "protect the users" mentality is IMHO misguided and dangerous, because it's basically one individual or a small group making the argument that taking away individual freedom (and thus giving more control to those in power) is "better for everyone". The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Incidentally, that's how a lot of dystopian sci-fi looks like...