It is a remarkable reading of my comment, in which I identify where black-and-white thinking has led your analysis into error, that can mistake that criticism for the error it describes.
It really isn't a simple question you're asking, is the problem. If I thought it needed less than a book to answer, why would I be about to recommend books?
I think the response was an uncharitable reading of my comment. Obviously you get 10 people together and you have all kinds of demographics even in the same neighborhood. The question is about which of many are dominant, or which are simply missing. I didn’t think that needed to be said.
> It really isn't a simple question you're asking,
I agree. I apologize for miscommunication and if you have any books to share please do.
It needed to be said because that question makes no sense in the situation of which you ask it. That any demographic or mix of same would necessarily be "dominant" in the context of early Internet culture, indeed even the unitary integrity the phrase "early Internet culture" grammatically implies, is an assumption. As long as you keep that, no history I can recommend is going to help you, because read with that assumption they will also make no sense. (I'll still recommend them, of course; just that I don't see them doing you any good this way.)
The scare quotes are because I honestly do not understand what you mean by that term here; I think you and I might be speaking across an ocean, too.
To rephrase the question, who was influential on the internet? What biases and ideals were on the internet due to those selection effects.
For example, the internet was very secular and perhaps nihilistic. Where does that come from.