Indeed, both the takes on anarchism and democracy are ridiculously simplistic and soaked with western dominant thinking (being at the top of current political s

Indeed, both the takes on anarchism and democracy are ridiculously simplistic and soaked with western dominant thinking (being at the top of current political systems, linear view on progress, masses are dumb, liberal democracy is the only option). I'm gonna quote this gem: > In political history, the birth of free nations typically contains three stages: dictatorship, briefly overthrown to anarchy, reformed to democracy. They don't even seem to realize that both words have so much different acceptions that they have no precise meaning by themselve, yet asserts facts like "Anarchy fantasizes that freedom protects itself", "In any democracy, centralised power is wielded to protect freedom". Another hard no-no is the plot. This plot should have been log-log ffs! You're already saying it's probably power law and then continue on saying: > There is a massive spike corresponding to just a few instances, and the rest of the graph is nearly invisible to the naked eye, so tiny and so overshadowed by just a few giants. Frankly, this distribution is closer to the Dirac delta function than a power law. This is not serious, especially for someone studying math and doing such elite low-level dev. Don't math-wash your opinions (perhaps you know you're just joking/bs-ing but other people might not). In the light of all these flaws, the actual content is a mix-n-match of unsubstantiated opinions (democracy is good, anarchy is bad) and then at the end a call to build social institutions on the internet.. I'm quite annoyed at this post, on one hand this is all nice and kind, and i can (hope to) see the good intentions, but on the other hand it's really really sloppy and so easy to conter-argue on. edit: there is also not a single mention of p2p systems, in an article about centralization and federation, which is like the elephant in the room