I see two problems, which cause the 3 cited in the article. First, the web does not scale. If your web site becomes popular, (even if temporarily), you have t

I see two problems, which cause the 3 cited in the article. First, the web does not scale. If your web site becomes popular, (even if temporarily), you have to handle the load, or suffer unavailability. This effect is magnified if you publish heavy files such as videos. This draws people towards centralised services such as blog and vlog platforms, which serve us ads and restrict free speech because that's how they make money and manage not to get sued every time someone says something illegal somewhere. Second, the web has eaten the internet. We use it for email, file sharing… basically everything but phone apps and networked games. It's gotten so ubiquitous that nobody notices the serious attack on their internet connection: crappy upload, closed SMTP port, NAT… The solution is as simple as it is impossible: we need to get rid of the web —mostly. First, some infrastructure. We need symmetric bandwidth, public IP(v6), no closed ports, and a nice 5W home server/router/firewall that's always on. Second, we need to replace web services by something else. Publishing should be handled by peer-to-peer protocols similar to BitTorrent, so that popularity doesn't eat all your bandwidth. And poof, just like that, services like Medium and YouTube are no longer needed. So are centralised social networks —we can do decentralised restricted publishing. Everyone can of course have their own mail server, no need for gmail to spy on us. Public forums can probably be decentralised as well, maybe if we take inspiration from newsgroups? Then the web will scale back to its proper place, and hopefully will stop being a threat to our freedoms.