What am I missing?
The problem that the blockchain solves is essentially one of decentralised consensus on mutable data. Decentralised consensus on immutable data is "easy" (see Bittorrent, IPFS), but getting everyone to agree on who owns "yoursite.com" and what data it points to fundamentally depends on a universally agreed key-value mapping. Using a blockchain allows everyone to agree on such a mapping, with some nice extras thrown in like blind auctions and public key crypto. Namecoin and the newly launched Ethereum Name Service work similarly.
The big question given the inefficiency of proof-of-work blockchains is whether there are other ways to do decentralised mutable data. I'm currently working for MaidSafe, whose approach is based on a more traditional DHT and voting amongst randomised groups of nodes. We're still in alpha however, so for now the working systems are all blockchain based.
This is not a new Internet. This is a good way to waste time, effort, and money on something that's had a lot more thought put into the comprehensiveness of its rhetoric than into the comprehensiveness of its actual offering.
Most of us would not stand for this in our real, everyday lives. But on the internet, we tolerate and even expect it. We become dependent on nameless, faceless, remote parties just by connecting. On the internet, we are powerless. Our existence on the internet is defined by others, whether that other be a mega-corporation or a government.
Now, we can change that.
Beautiful mission statement.