I have this sense that as someone who’s cared for a long time about Open Source, I’ve been had by the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. Even though I use their services as little as possible (basically, just the Google Play store on my Android phone), they still get to ride on the shoulders of all the giants who came before them (who founded the internet and published all those great open standards in a spirit of cooperation), building their products using open source software. Then Google, Facebook, Amazon etc are rich enough to buy the actual networks the internet passes through, and set (or strongly influence) the QOS rules everywhere so their services get (and then appear to magically provide) the most favorable and reliable service.
In other words, they get the best of both worlds: they reap any and all the labour from Open Source enthusiasts and coders, plus they also have proprietary-esqe control over the actual physical networks (subverting or working around net neutrality), and endpoint hardware (such as Pixel phones, Chromebooks, voice-activated AI assistants like Alexa, drones, military-grade Terminator robots, etc).
They are powerful enough to tilt the playing field in their favor, despite the “fairness” of open standards that are in use, logically, on those said networks. A painful example of such “tilting” recently came in the form of not showing full URLs any longer in Google Chrome, which plays into the hands of Google AMP.
Duh, what’s a URL? Your grandkids will likely have no clue, despite VR goggles being pretty much welded to their faces. Good luck self-hosting then!
Isn’t self-hosting with Open source doomed to be a failure, owing to the QOS rules which only the rich effectively get to control? Sure, maybe your own family might have decent service within a small region, but as soon as your self-hosting crosses an ocean or something, then as a small fry, you are effectively powerless over the QOS rules behaving decently, when you need them to.