The article says "The assumption that "Twitter but decentralized" or "Facebook but open-source and federated" will necessarily be good—rather than differently bad—is a weak one."

So yes I think you're confused.

It also says:

> I don't think any centrally governed platform at global scale is capable of doing the work, even if they hired the best and sharpest people I know. Even if they put real effort into humanist upstream product design, rather than tossing loose change to trust and safety teams sent in to clean up after the fact.

>

> Local norms matter too much for global governance of the social internet to make sense; the flattening of global diversity to fit the norms and interests of any given American techno-culture—corporate or otherwise—is both a baldly colonial aspiration and one we should scorn for the same reason that we leave the idea of effective, monolithic, planetary-scale government—benevolent or otherwise—to underbaked science fiction. Home rule and genuine resilience both require the existence of many places, many of them at least partially interconnected.

That’s what confused me, given your cited context. It doesn’t sound centralized. Things that are not centralized are decentralized, no?