With LaTeX, the document creator must compile the document, through a fairly persnickety processor (latex, tetex, or an equivalent). Whilst that may still pass poorly-structured documents and result in poorly-formed output, straight-up illegal syntax won't make.

HTML has no such requirements. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from posting that in the first place. Throw something at a browser, and it will try its damndest to ingest it --- that's the "runtime compiled" element of the Web.

(It's not a perfect analogy to software compilation, though it can get surprisingly close.)

Essentially: the Web lacks any editor role. That's long been touted as a benefit. At scale, however, and over time ... it becomes problematic.

Moreover, the commercial Web has a selection process and corresponding evolutionary path which has come to be seen as less than optimal for those seeking high-value, high-relevance content. It is in fact hostile to such content, on multiple bases.

Again, LaTeX alone won't fix these problems. It addresses a few issues of structure. The concept of a post-authoring compliation state (ironically itself somewhat present in many web content-management systems, but not oriented around the document or content itself for the most part, but rather branding, advertising, and surveillance instrumenting) is also somewhat attractive but ... problematic. A discovery-mechanism scoring penalty might help (and Google's certainly applied that in other areas).