1) Your information is owned by the publisher, you can't reprint or send copies to friends.
This is a sweeping generalization at best and wrong in most cases. It is perfectly possible to publish in a 'gold' open acess journal like the ones owned by PLoS, in which case your information is published under, for instance, some CC license. Even most 'traditional' journals nowadays allow self-archiving preprint and/or postprints in an institutional repository like Harvard's or in ArXiv ('green' open access).
3) The work gets restricted to a small audience - the ones who can afford the access fees
Not necessarily true, for the reasons outlined above.
4) It's rife with politics and petty, spiteful people
The same goes for Slashdot, Wikipedia, the local philately club and most communities I can think of. More seriously, it also happens that a paper is vastly improved thanks to constructive and insightful comments by genuinely concerned reviewers.
5) The standard format is cripplingly small, confining, and constrained.
I can sort of see what you mean by this, although most journals allow authors to post supplementary information (or just add a link to one's web page). Is this really such a problem in practice?
6) The standard format requires jargonized cant to promote exclusion.
There is a reason why jargon exists: it helps specialists communicate. The reason is not to exclude non-specialists, which may be an unfortunate side-effect from time to time. There are other media for that purpose (communicating the results of important research to a wider audience).