It's hard to pinpoint a cohesive thesis in this long, winding article. It's a mix of explanations about how the internet works (IP addresses, undersea cables) and talking about the scale of Facebook, Instagram, and other big tech companies. The author is concerned that too many internet users choose to use big tech websites, which he suggests is a threat to the open internet:

> Those are large enough numbers to admit that the open Web is already rather irrelevant to Zuckerberg’s products.

But this claim doesn't make any sense, because with few exceptions people still need the open internet to access Facebook. Is Facebook really stopping any of us from using other parts of the internet? Sure, we can point to Facebook's initiatives to provide free internet access in some countries as a sign that they want to control some of the internet, but it's irrelevant for 99%+ of the population.

As much as I love mesh networks, the idea that we're going to replace the internet with regional mesh networks is a pipe dream. Mesh networks could be fun as a relatively low-bandwidth alternative network, but there is zero incentive for the average consumer or even a tech person to give up their high speed internet access that already does everything they need.

I'm getting tired of these articles that neglect to consider that maybe people who voluntarily choose to use products like Facebook do so because they actually want to. It's becoming a common theme to talk about the general public like sheep who are under the control of evil tech companies, and to pretend that us enlightened tech people need to use our hardware and software skills to stop people from choosing to use websites they enjoy. There are some legitimate concerns around things like privacy and tracking, but the solution isn't to create an alternate internet universe and hope that everyone decides to give up the main internet for this alternate, Facebook-free version of the internet.