Even so, development and fabrication of technology, and all other activity from which you benefit, inclusive even of the extraction of resources from the natural environment, depends on social organization underpinned by rules and norms.

Your freedom to extract resources limits another's freedom to conserve instead of destroying. Your freedom to consume a manufactured good limits another's freedom of rest instead of producing.

Freedom is not a condition of independence, nor one that may expand ever further. Rather, every freedom is limited by others', and is dependent on their choices to uphold such freedom.

The narrator seems to attempt a false dichotomy between, on one hand, action by a central power or bureaucracy (or rather inaction), versus, on the other hand, action by individuals or very small and ad-hoc groups. He criticizes the entrenched dysfunction and apathy of elite systems, and then he gives historic examples of action that has succeeded only when undertaken by individuals acting alone.

From such an assumption, he encourages the listener to aspire dominantly to assert personal responsibility.

However, considering the issue from an anarchist perspective, I am inclined to challenge the fundamental assumption.

Most anarchists rather emphasize collective action and mass movements, aspiring to a high degree of coordination while resisting centralization.

Then, I would only ask that you consider whether it would be possible for you to enjoy yourself equally well if not also benefiting from rules and norms established within a society, for example, the relationships of labor through which were manufactured the computer hardware you enjoy using.

Rules and norms are the basis of society.

You are immersed in a deep fantasy not worth further discussion.

Enjoy hanging with the crypto bros.

As I suggested earlier through my mention of techno-utopianism, your views are too far removed from reality to be worth debunking.

In the context of social media, being able to revise or to remove one's own content is a form of freedom, as is being protected against others' abusive behavior, through norms and rules being enforced collaboratively within community.

No freedom may expand without limits, including through limiting other freedoms.

Being free depends on being in dialogue with those others in society on whose choices are dependent whichever freedoms you hold most precious.

Every person registered on a defederated site then can no longer communicate with the rest, even if they themselves did nothing wrong. This site owner <-> user hirarchy is principally unjust.

Your objection is against your being a disempowered user of an instance completely outside your control, but such a condition is not requisite, in general, for participation in the Fediverse.

A Fediverse instance is simply a resource that is created, operated, and utilized socially.

An instance may be operated hierarchically or cooperatively, but an occurrence of the former case is not due to a flaw in design.

Rather, like any other such resource, its social management is entirely separate from its intrinsic nature.

Anarchism is categorized into social anarchism and also individualist anarchism.

However you frame the divisions, values and objectives have no relevance if they are predicated on conceptual errors.

In the digital world at least, freedom is potentially limitless, even without trampling on other peoples freedom.

Techno-utopian drivel is not worth my time to debunk.

You seem broadly to object to living in a society, which carries both benefits and burdens. Technology may help make life better for everyone, but it cannot free you from our responsibilities to one another, without which our lives would be both soon to end and meaningfulness to endure.

Since you are using the term "anarchism" to describe principles that are rejected by the tradition from which the term arose, roughly one century and a half before its being appropriated by the movement with which you associate it, I would agree that others having a different philosophy than you is an accurate minimal characterization.

You asked a question, to which I provided an answer. Hopefully you understand it.

Please identify the Lemmy instance whose operators forced you to continue participation, so that operators of other instances may remove it from the federation, due to its abusive practices.

Anarchists do not advocate for "individual freedom above all else", because they understand that freedom is a social value that characterizes social relationships, and therefore meaningless except as occurring within social systems.

There is no arbitrary expansion of individual freedom, or more precisely, there is no arbitrary expansion of the freedom for the members of one group, except by the contraction of the freedom of the members of another group.

Why would it be counter-productive to promise people a better way to achieve digital anarchism?

It seems there is some doubt over how closely you agree with others regarding the method and meaning of such a comparison, or what even is meant by anarchism.

Why do you think that a lack of structure, a design in which service nodes are no more than "dumb relays", represents a higher refinement of anarchist objectives or values, compared to a federation of autonomous sites?

a more relevant question would be, “How can an anarchist factory produce insulin (and other medicines)?”

Yes, and it seems the actual point of confusion is simply how an anarchist society may achieve objectives that require larger scale than the level of local community.