While I completely agree that current big publisher model is broken (which is why I personally don't submit to or review for the big publishers anymore), I wish

While I completely agree that current big publisher model is broken (which is why I personally don't submit to or review for the big publishers anymore), I wish people would stop making the above argument because it's not helpful nor particularly strong. First, taxpayers do not get direct benefit from most of the things funded by their taxes, only indirect benefits. E.g., you do not get to fly around in a fighter plane even though you partly paid for one, but they will keep you safe. So it does not follow that publicly funded science should automatically be publicly accessible (although personally I believe it should be). Second, in practice the number of people that can get direct benefit from reading any single research paper is very small. The vast majority of those people are working in institutions that have access to the journals, and those few that are not, can usually get a copy simply by emailing the author. So making the papers open will have a very limited real, practical impact for the readers. Third, if the funding source mandates open access (which many now do), all it means is that a few thousand bucks more per publication go into the pockets of the big publishers as open access fees instead of paying for research. And the institutions are still going to have to buy the same subscription packages to the journals to get access to all the articles. So less public money goes to research, more to the bottom lines of the publishers. The real problem is that the high impact venues are privately owned and run for profit. That is the problem that needs to be fixed. E.g., instead of mandating open access, mandate that the Chairs or PIs getting funding must serve on publication venues run by non-profit professional associations. Or set up publicly owned high quality venues (like universities in many countries) and make serving in their editorial and review boards a part of the duties of publicly funded Chairs. Or reduce the impact weight of for-profit publication venues when evaluating candidates for publicly funded positions. etc. etc.