WYSIWYG tools came a bit later. GeoCities in '94, FrontPage in '95, Dreamweaver in '97.
They were also _much_ less popular. There were millions of GeoCities sites, while FrontPage was a niche tool, even after Microsoft bought it in '96.
Like you said, these tools weren't good enough. They produced a mess of content that was limited in features and difficult to maintain, but more importantly, they were still reserved for a technical audience. You still needed to know what a web host was, how to use FTP, etc. They were woefully insufficient, even compared to publishing services.
> Many ISPs provided a bit of web space for people as part of the default offer.
I'm not sure if "many" is correct. Certainly _some_ did, but the largest ones like AOL and CompuServe in the US didn't, AFAIK.
WordPress came much later when the web was already established. And it was also largely a technical tool.
But WYSIWYG tools shouldn't have existed either. Like publishing services, they are a response to a feature the web didn't have. People certainly have a need to produce content, but the barrier to do so was so high, that most flocked to services like GeoCities, and later social media, to fulfill this need.
If producing content was as easy as consuming it was in the early web, i.e. if we had an analogous tool to the web browser for publishing, the way the web developed and the modern web would've been much different, and arguably for the better. Nontechnical users eventually learned to use the web browser, and they would've learned the web "creator" as well.
Unfortunately that opportunity has passed, and we can't re-educate people to use a different web than the one they're already used to. At least I'm pessimistic that any of these decentralized projects will gain any mainstream traction.
> It's done via centralized platforms for the same reason everything else is: they can move fast, they can raise and make money, they can hire the smartest and hardest working people to build them because there's some real chance of reward.
None of these are advantages. Centralized platforms _require_ these things because running a centralized service at scale is incredibly complex. Most of the problems these platforms deal with is precisely because of the complexity of scale.
Yet if the web model reused the inherent decentralized model of the internet, scaling a centralized service wouldn't be a problem. Protocols like BitTorrent have solved content distribution that doesn't rely on a centralized server. Had this model been adopted from the start, none of the modern centralized platforms would have a need to exist.