I'm not even 100% convinced that the ideal of universal access to information is an unalloyed good
That's actually an interesting question, I've always assumed that it is. That being said, I've always assumed the information is correct or can be verified correct, or can be eventually demonstrated as incorrect and then repaired.
Remember the pseudo-joke about how "unwritten laws are the worst to change, because they're not written down in any one place?" Rumors and hearsay are hard to correct, because maybe they're right, maybe they're only partially right, maybe they were right once but not now, maybe they'll be right AGAIN, and maybe "THEY" want to keep it secret from you. Oh, and it might just be someone's misunderstanding or compete total BS as well.
Now, it's impossible to ALWAYS check EVERYTHING out FULLY -- there's just not enough time. So you have to trust someone, and realize that THEY'RE trusting someone as well. Everyone ends up with information sources: some trustworthy, some not-so-much, and some completely worthless. And some actually less than worthless since they can cause confusion, angst, and dispute the common wisdom. (Anyone remember 'Question authority?') And it's also obvious that heavy things fall faster than light ones. And the Sun moves around the Earth, which is Flat -- all common wisdom at the time.)
Unless you're in math, I think it's a never-ending, never-settled topic. *I* think we landed on the moon; other people think we did not. We both have "truth" on our side, but seemingly I've got positive records (technology, written records, pictures, etc.) while other people have something similar, only I think pointing to a conspiracy.
So: did we go, or not? Make up your own mind. Or you can have your mind made up for you by a prominent scholar like this one: "there needed to be standards to prevent users from dangers such as 'immoral and inhumane' videos and photos, rumors, and espionage." This is coming from a man of high moral standards who have been vouched for by other people.
Oh, and the same leader says "mobile ... and broadband internet [are] morally wrong", too. I'm still confused if 300-baud is moral or not. After using it decades ago, I think I'd classify it as immoral -- but for a different reason.
Information is Power; that's why the powerful (Church, Governments, individuals, etc) want to control the flow (spin) if not the actual information itself.