What distinction are you trying to make here? A completely open protocol with no single controlling entity would not be inherently beholden to government control or laws like a platform would be. It can result in the distribution of illegal content such as child porn. How is this not an example of potential anarchy?
Email is an open protocol. If I send an email that's illegal, say death threats or child porn, the government can put me in jail. There doesn't need to be a single controlling entity for that to work.
The process of doing that involves investigation, subpoenas, and warrants, and is subject to laws created in a more or less democratic process. No part of it requires anyone to prevent me from sending illegal emails, just an apparatus to punish me if I do.
Anarchists as a political group usually don't like it when anarchy is compared to chaos, as this is usually a comparison that was formed by their ideological opponents.
I still don't understand this point. I am not describing chaos. I am describing the specific drawbacks of a lack of centralized authority overseeing things. Isn't that the dictionary definition of anarchy. What am I missing?
