Example:
Teaching fundamental abstractions before basing education on one set or another.
Teaching fundamental program sets/basics of toolchains (Think scripts, text editors, and intro to program compilation.)
Teaching fundamental protocols.
Teaching about infrastructure.
Teaching how to do X in Windows/Mac/Linux.
IN THAT ORDER. Notice that that curriculum, while it would likely have to choose one OS or another based on circumstances, focuses on what you can DO with a computer, and lays a foundation through which the neophyte user can begin to understand what a computer and the NET really are.
The NET isn't a pretty screen. It isn't one company's search engine, it's the means by which info goes from HERE to THERE. A computer isn't some mere calculator. It is an extension of our minds (and should be civically treated as such, but that's another post).
I can die happy if within my lifetime, my occupation in the tech industry becomes "unskilled" labor. For I will have contributed to finding a way to elevate mankind to a me level.
2000 years ago: "we'll never be in a world where the average person can read and write English"
I doubt this is even the point of GP.
My point is: it should be possible to use something without fully understanding the minutiae of how it works. We call this “user interface design”.
You should be allowed to live in a house without a full understanding of the architectural details that prevent it from falling down.
Making computers accessible seems like a completely reasonable, sound priority. Yes, computer literacy is something we all need to work towards, but we'll never be in a world where the average person understands PKI, and saying that we should limit accessibility until they do is absurd.