This article gives me some sad mood and feel. Probably because of being reminder, that anarchism is a fancy utopia, a colossus that based on two sand legs.
One such sand leg is an assumption that most people are good by default and their intentions are good or at least neutral. At least most of the time.
And another sand leg is an assumption that people can easily choose community to live in, and live among people sharing our worldview and values. In practice we can’t do so, and instead, we first being born in a random community, and then, at best, we can leave it, and choose between two or three random communities, we know nothing about beforehand. And as usually happens, we have choose by some different factors. Like, what country allows to settle a foreigner at easier legal terms, for example. A city or district where rent is cheaper. Or country or city where there is more reliable internet connectivity. Or even country or city where it is easier to find a job. Or something else. But you can’t say “Ok, Kagi, please find a community where an internet hikka couple with an anarchistic worldview can settle with ease, not being disturbed too much by neighbors or political catastrophes”.
BTW, this, the second sand leg, probably, is why internet, with all its limitations and unreliablilty, centralization from the start, and today anti-P2P nature, still lures people so much. The option to say “Hey, Kagi, please find like-minded people to listen to without too much need to talk myself.”