[cdrini]

I think some are fine, but if I had to choose one I'd choose open access, so I think it's the more important of the two. And in fact it's because the web is open, "no permission needed" by default that allows elitist groups to exist on the web. So I don't think I see it as a mistake. The alternative would be... You can only create a website if you're invited to the internet by someone who already has access? You have to get approval for your website from some authority before it goes public? Those were all potential futures we imo thankfully and carefully avoided!

[inigyou]

That's actually how it already works, but there are large commercial access providers known as "ISPs". Before there were ISPs, you literally could only get on the internet with a direct connection to someone on the internet, usually a large university.

[qsera]

>Those were all potential futures we imo thankfully and carefully avoided!

I am not so thankful. But it is coming from my view of the current world.

I think open Internet for business is good. But open Internet for communication was bad. I cannot think of one good thing that have resulted from an open internet for communication/discussions. It has turned out to result in a collective, perpetual state of seizure for all humanity.

I am someone who had to learn stuff from random encounters with books in the 90s. Even then, I would not have it any other way...