You’re still confusing what GNOME is or does. GNOME has no leverage to impose. Unlike a web browser, or Android, GNOME does not control the application delivery pipeline, and cannot impose any restriction. GNOME cannot prevent “the user experience” from deteriorating; how can it? Let’s say that GNOME Shell, using some unknown magic, detects that Chrome, or any Chrome-based/Electron-based application, is requesting shortcuts, and does not show any UI; how does that prevent a malignant application from taking advantage of that? How does that work when Chrome/Chromium/Electron gets fixed, since there’s no “user agent” when doing IPC calls to the portal? How does that work with libraries? How does that work when distributions can decide to patch things on their own?
GNOME is a platform, sure; it’s not a platform in the same sense that Android is a platform: application developers are not asking GNOME for permission to distribute their work, and vendors are not asking GNOME for permission to deploy on their hardware.
I understand you’re frustrated about some bug; there are plenty of those around. Your frustration does not make the world work differently.