I do not want my home computer to be exposed to the Internet. I do not want your fancy new Internet apps, the existing ones with explicit user-initiated connectivity are more than enough for 99% of people.
And even if you somehow have a non-NAT, non-CGNAT, no-ISP-filtering home connection, do you have full Internet access if the server behind NowhereNews.com refuses all your connections because you’re in Europe?
You probably know this but NAT is not the same thing as a firewall. You can have one without the other or both. Just because your machine is addressable doesn’t mean it is accessible. You can have machines on your home LAN that have public IP addresses but are not publicly accessible. NAT exists because historically ISPs didn’t give out blocks of public IP addresses, and now that they are running out of them, they are expensive. It’s not really a security measure.
Yeah, I know, but NAT’s side effect of preventing all sorts of remote access is quite convenient, I don’t have to trust the cheap router or cheap internet of shit device to do the right thing firewall-wise.
This is a non sequitur. Your home computer being "exposed to the internet" is orthogonal. And of course this is now enough for 99% of people because said new apps are prevented from coming into existence.
And even if you somehow have a non-NAT, non-CGNAT, no-ISP-filtering home connection, do you have full Internet access if the server behind NowhereNews.com refuses all your connections because you’re in Europe?