It’s a shame somebody well intentioned didn’t retain some control over it.
Well, that was intentional. The web, and the internet upon which it was built, are worldwide and decentralised. Anyone can get a connection and host stuff. The same way anyone can get a telephone line and, when someone calls, say whatever you like.
If it had been made impossible to host a website without first getting it approved by some committee, the web would have been strangled to death at birth. By 1997 there were over a million websites, each could have many thousands of pages, each page could be changed instantly at any time. Today there are over a billion. It's infeasible for humans to centrally pre-approve all web content.
The rise of tech giants has created considerable new centralisation but that is not complete, hence why sites like Mumsnet still exist. Which, after all, allows us to publish opinions that opponents would much prefer were censored.
Individual countries do control, censor, and regulate their portions of the internet to varying extents. Or at least the ability of their citizens to access it. The British government has been working with ISPs to block access to child sexual abuse since the early 00s, and more recently has blocked sites for copyright infringement. Then you've got China as the most prominent example of heavy censorship for the political gain of the ruling party.
But most such control is reactive, policing what has already been made available. The analogy of the internet to the global telephone network, which in many ways was the internet's predecessor, makes it obvious how hard it would be to take any other approach.