nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet

For that to be true, over 70% of Americans must be BOTH digitally literate AND trust the Internet, which is impossible since anyone who trusts the Internet is not digitally literate.

IPv6 addresses are so long that you can't remember them long enough to read the address from one machine and type it into another.

Which is not a problem because normal people don't have to read the IP address from one machine and type it into another. They use DNS and DHCP, which were specifically intended to eliminate the overwhelming majority of instances of dealing with IP addresses directly.

I've been a networking software engineer for most of my career, so I do have to deal directly with IP address (v4 and v6) routinely, and I don't complain about it. My mother is not a networking software engineer or IT person, so she's had to do that exactly ZERO times in the 15+ years that she's used the Internet.

But, it seems unworkable from a human perspective. No I haven't thought of a better solution. I'm just saying that this is a significant usability problem and a barrier to adoption.

It's not a usability problem, because people shouldn't be directly dealing with IP addresses. If people are directly dealing with IP addresses, that is the usability problem which needs fixing, and not the length of the address.

XFS is prone to data corruption when improperly shut down.

Really? Ugh. I thought most modern file systems were consciously designed to avoid that sort of problem.

They're adding "slow lanes", and moving services that don't pay up into the slow lanes.

The whole thing is nothing but greed. The ISPs at both ends are already being paid for the bandwidth, but the ISP at the consumer end wants to be paid for it twice, once by the consumer and once by Netflix.

Would you argue that if a Microsoft (or other vendor) SSL implementation was used by most of the world's web servers, this would have been less likely to happen? As far as I know, there's no reason to think that any other implementation, open or closed, would be any more immune to such problems. There is little or no evidence that closed source software is generally more reliable, or that substantial effort is made to audit it.

If you're arguing that it's bad that such a high percentage of the world's web servers use the same software, I might agree, but that is completely orthogonal to whether that software is open or closed.