You will have a hard time convincing me, that there is anything wrong with this.
The thing that is "wrong" here is that we (as in humanity) apparently need to distinguish clients on the server side. This makes little to no sense. There are standards for a reason. It just seems that web technologies are either poorly defining standards, poorly maintaining standards or poorly implementing standards - most likely a combination thereof.
Web technologies have become so accessible that people without the necessary backgrounds, skills & experience
think that they can pull of what others study years for and dedicate their life towards.
I'm not trying to express that things should not be accessible but the more accessible technology becomes the more it tends to be bend left and right to "just get this feature landed as quickly as possible".
This ripples through all the layers. Suddenly you have something like web browsers having more frequent releases than any other piece of software which means that there is little to no time to properly care for security which means that you need yet more frequent releases to patch issues that were not discovered prior - while adding more issues to be discovered and fixed a few days later.
Obviously this is not different from the regular software development workflow. I'm complaining about the fact that we seem to need/require/want extremely fast moving software rather than taking it slow and keeping things nice & neat.
These days, web browsers are pretty much an entire operating system. Why? Why is this necessary? Because we want shiny new bling-bling features and we want them yesterday and we want everybody with a coffee mug to be able to "make" something. To accomplish that, software gets engineered poorly, release management is done poorly, security is handled poorly. And to get everything done even faster, lets pull in 48719 dependencies without actually auditing, authoring or maintaining those. Again: Because you can't. It's beyond anyones man power. We have seen governments trying to do this and they failed. So I get that it's a man power & logistical issue. But whenever there are resource limits in the real world it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate what is actually necessary and what is just popular demand and regulate from there.
The web has become a disease. And we'll most likely not be able to get away from that without a skilled group of people dedicating themselves to rebuild. I doubt that what we currently have is fixable - because it's a systematic problem, not a technological one.
We keep piling stuff on top of each other. This used to work well in the past because things moved way more slowly. But these days somebody starts building something new on some "technology" that was "invented" a week earlier, implemented by a group of juniors that think that they are senior and audited by nobody.