Random Idealism

This short bit of raving was inspired by a rebuttal formed to a conversation I had some time ago with a friend, antagonist, and self-made philosopher. Said rebuttal itself has long hidden away in some personal (offline) writings, but I present here the gist of it.
Would someone kindly explain to me why standardization of Web browser platforms (and concurrently, Web design) is necessarily a bad thing? The people who oppose this idea do so on the grounds that being restricted to a single browser/design platform is detrimental to their creative freedom. They go on to say--or shout, more often than not--that, basically, they should be free to disseminate whatever data they possess in any manner that they see fit. The uniform compatibility policy is seen as an attempt at control, and thus a threat. And, in a broad sense, it is a very strict form of control. As a proponent of free speech, an advocate of public domain data, and a self-proclaimed, self-dubbed "Knowledge Communist", I can begin to understand the negative responses. However, it occurred to me a long time ago that having a common standardized vehicle for distribution of data is our only chance for a free information society. I can sum up my stance in one sentence:

What is the use of dispensing information in a form that only a few people can access?

If you're not reaching the public with your data, then all your idealistic posturing over your right to reach them on your own terms is moot. It is possible to become so militant in your defense of a principle that you lose sight of the idea on which that principle was founded.

What do you think?