But open content is not 1% of the existing web; there are more than a billion[1] websites, and anybody can make one.
You might not easily be able to find those websites (currently, there's still a good chance you might, via the major search engines, but that is subject to corporate hegemony, state actor malfeasance, shit-flooding the zone, etc).
But I think the ability to "put it out there" counts for most of the definition of "open".
Being able to consume content on your terms is also cool, but not as fundamental as being able to produce it.
[1]: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+websites+are+there+in+the...
Cases in point: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (increasingly closed), Reddit (increasingly closed). All of them have sites built on open protocols.
Have you heard of biscuits?
You've been able to turn off cookies since the beginning in any sort of competent browser.
Or I completely screwed up my understanding of this thread. That's also very possible.
[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...
Anyone can make an app too.
> if it's has one good article, it will show up in some google query's result.
Maybe buried deep in the 100th page, but not the front.
On iOS, this is only true if they're in good standing with Apple and have their approval, while also paying the yearly $100 Apple tax.
Wait till you find out about paying for bandwidth.
After they install some bloated IDE, learn some "tech", and pay the gatekeepers
> Maybe buried deep in the 100th page
But they can be found and share, as opposed to apps of a non existent category where average people publish what they are working on, their thoughts, or whatever. App Store and Google Play search would crumble at the scale of the number of websites in existence right now (~2 billions). Remember that search engines index what's inside those websites too not just their name and description.
Tell me how making and hosting a website is absolutely free.
If we're judging whether the Web promotes open content by the actual results after three decades, the exact opposite is the case: the Web promotes closed content.
Netflix, ESPN, Google/Gmail/Maps/News/etc, Microsoft/Bing/Office/mail/etc, NYTimes, Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC, CNBC, Reuters, AP, CNN, Bloomberg, FoxNews, ABC, CBS, NBC, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, Pinterest, YouTube, Imgur, eBay, Amazon/Twitch/Prime/etc, Target, Walmart, ETSY, Disney, Viacom, Verizon/Yahoo, Match.com, Quora, PayPal. Along with pretty much all corporate sites and porn sites. Most blogs are privately owned, copyrighted; same with substacks; same with most mailing lists. Most photography on the Web is owned by someone, and captive on a platform. Travel sites/services (Booking, Expedia, etc), review sites/services (Yelp, Trip Advisor, most cooking sites, etc), weather sites, real-estate sites (Realtor.com, Zillow, Apartments.com, etc); ticket sites (Vivid, Stubhub, Ticketmaster, Live Nation) - they're largely in the same box, they're all privately owned, copyrighted content, closed corporate platforms.
Now keep going with that list for most of the next 5,000+ largest sites (with few exceptions like Wikipedia or Stack Exchange).
Nearly everything on the Web is centralized, closed, privately owned, copyrighted content and or platforms. They're all little walled gardens.