You're clearly emotional about this topic and I know I won't convince you.

Not sure where you read "emotional" out of anything I wrote or asked you.

But I've been a security engineer and executive at major companies in IT and operational technology for decades across Canada, US, and Europe.

If all of that is actually true then that makes your takes here either very sad, or rather very on point. Case in point:

I have spent enough time actually evicting nation-state actors from networks and recovering from their impacts to feel pretty confident in my opinion.

And you attributed these attacks to alleged "nation-state actors" how exactly? But with that kind of certainity, on something inheretly uncertain, it's no surprise you also think your opinions are beyond question.

Ultimately, you're comparing a thing that exists to a thing that doesn't.

Not at all, I'm comparing the web we used to have to the one we have right now.

If Europe could come up with a hyperscale platform with a well-resourced security team and sustainable economics, then great! Go use that.

The American writes, and the moment the EU actually tries to get something like that going your American government will bully and sanction all kinds of related parties, American, and non-American and all over the world.

In the absence of that, though, real choices need to be made. And the reason they haven't is largely because of protectionist attitudes like yours.

Because it's Europe that's strong-arming EU companies like ASML not to sell to Chinese competiton? Or would that rather be your American government, the same one passing massive subsidies like with the CHIP Act?

When China does something like that your government considers that justification why the EU shouldn't sell lithography equipment to China.

And no, fragmentation is not the same thing as segmentation or compartmentalization, unless you think those are accomplished by using different protocols and management planes for each compartment.

Brother, I'm talking about the fundamentals not only of the free world wide web but even the peer to peer routing it's based on.

These are ideas that are built on decentralisation, relying on decentralisation to actually be viable, to enable a plurality of opinions on an actual "market of ideas" with a level playing field.

You know, how the web actually used to be before a bunch of US corporations came in with more money than sense thanks to the post-2008 banking crisis ZIRP

Which would be a horrible idea.

Again: If you want to see "horrible ideas" you only look at your own one of; "Hey let's give all our eggs to the American fox and hope he doesn't steal them!"

Or you acting like the web is this American for profit thing, when it actually started out as an international scientific thing, out of Europe.

But don't let that stop you from telling us how we shouldn't/can't do it, likely because such a move would directly impact your bottom line, right?