A different point-of-view: on one side people and so some institutions who happen starting doing a very little part of their job start to wonder how "safe" is l

A different point-of-view: on one side people and so some institutions who happen starting doing a very little part of their job start to wonder how "safe" is living on someone else computer-systems and want something "more local" under their control. On the other some wannabe dictatorships start to think that covering their back parts from others propaganda can be good for them. That's NOT at all the end of borderless data, it's just the beginning of the end of GAFAM dominion since most States in the world and few Citizens start to want their own systems under their own control. Witch is actually mostly VERY good, the not good part is censorship but the west world authorities can only remain silent since their own censorship on their own people from Assange to present censorship and mud machines of "third parties" subjects they dislike (no matter the reasons), the missed part is popular reaction that so far AFAIK is hyper low. My fellow HNers if we want, for good reasons, a homeserver with our data instead of someone else services that can be banned, changes overnight in unpleasant manner, ... why someone else should want differently? Does this means the end of borderless internet? IMVHO DEFINITIVELY NOT it means just the end of some hyper giant players witch can be observed elsewhere like the end of mega-ships, mega-planes, mega-projects etc or just the passage from mainframes to clusters. The negative part is that we still not get much freedom simply because ways to control us are so many that even dropping smartphones and IT giants accounts to the bin (witch means GAFAM in the west, Yandex in Russia, Tancent in China etc) does not change anything since now digital controls is done by private parties (the aforementioned giants) under States laws like digital payment push, social scoring etc witch is the actual real dangerous and disastrous thing. For that the real missed point is: people need a basic IT culture to understand because now IT is a basic component of our society and to be Citizens we need to know a bit our society OR we can only be subjects/parasites. Only with such basic culture people in sufficient mass would push against certain dangerous aspects ON TIME.