Both the rise of fascism (as a failure) and the rise of the fediverse (as a success?) are vindications of the anarchist idea and refutations of the liberal one.
During the Trump catastrophe, informal antifascism provided a potential solution to the Popper paradox. But liberals couldn't see it, and spent the period punching left ("Susan Sarandon"), often goaded on by fascists ("cancel culture"); and reifying americanism (Russiagate) and authoritarianism (fake crime wave/"refund the police"). Now the fascist threat is even more grave.
During the first wave of fascist hate speech, liberals called for regulation - state censorship - of capitalist social media. But with the federation, we can discern an actually effective approach to the moderation problem - decentralization and the community devolution of moderation powers.
In both cases, informality and horizontalism were the right answers. Is anyone listening to them?
The problem is, the Fediverse design is absolutely not anarchist. In fact it solidifies control of systems and other people into management of the different instances.
It's not actually decentralization. It's further centralization into different instances, even as they happen to be federated.
So I, for one, really don't know what you're on about.
I don't think it's very funny, to be honest, because I think people need to be very very aware that their instance is under the control of whatever manager of the instance can at any point implement censorship both coming and going, silencing users posts or blocking things from the user being able to see.
I guess you can say that you are free to choose your master, or even jump to the hoops to be your own master, but it's not the paradise we might wish for.
@volkris
Isn't it funny how, when you look at a thing, you see centralization and control, and when I look at it, I see freedom and choice?