If you develop some feature (or bug!) of course some people will find a decent way to use it. That doesn’t mean the feature should be there on first place, specially when the possibility of abuse is so obvious. Plus if the pressure behind this anti-feature was “only” single page applications, and nothing else, I bet it would be implemented in a different way.

Also, look at the big picture. In isolation, one could argue giving pages access to your browsing history was a necessary albeit poorly thought feature; but when you look at other stuff browsers nowadays are supposed to do, you notice a pattern:

• Browsers giving more info to the page about your system than just “I’m a browser, I can browse pages”: the browser software, its version, the operating system, the fonts you have installed, your screen dimensions…
• Letting pages decide the behaviour of mouse clicks. And if the window is focused or not.
• The ability to show pop-up messages.
• etc.

Are you noticing the pattern? Those “features” are somewhat useful, with obvious room for abuse, and that abuse is usually from people who want your money.

Worse: all of them crammed into what was supposed to be a system to show you content, but eventually got bloated into a development platform, transforming browsers into those bloody abominations of nowadays, with a huge barrier of entry, dominated by a single vendor (and where the vassal of said vendor got ~3% market share). I’d say that not having a monopoly is more important than all those features together.