Damn dude, you don't have to get so defensive.

Who says we need or are entitled to a decentralized replacement for the modern internet?

This is a conversation about how to circumvent government surveillance and censorship. If you can't see the connection to a need for decentralized internet structure, that's on you.

Also, you said this:

I don't have to worry about my ISP either because I live in a still-civilized country, but yeah, if they really lock it down at that level that's going to be tough,

Wow, good for you, your government isn't rapidly implementing a surveillance state like seemingly most of the world is right now. That's not much of an argument for why other people don't need decentralized communication, though. Check your freaking privilege at the door.

You also said this:

There are countermeasures and workarounds though. VPN, mesh networking, borrowing somebody else's wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks.

In case you didn't know, mesh networking is decentralized communication. I merely pointed out that it isn't robust enough at this time to fully replace an internet connection, meaning it would be impractical to implement the fediverse over one.

Furthermore, VPNs can increase anonymity, but they still rely on a connection to their servers. Which means, under the current infrastructure, that you're still relying on your ISP. If the ISP decides to throttle all connections going through VPN servers, or if the government shuts down VPN servers, then you're still fucked. So that's not a workaround for the necessity of decentralized internet.

And, "borrowing somebody else's wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks" still means going through ISPs, and the point of "age verification" which we're discussing is so that they can still identify you regardless. So that's not a solution.

Lastly, you also said this:

Maybe we'll get to the point where we need point to point links, pirate satellites, datajacking ourselves into communication lines, who knows.

In other words, you agree that there is a point which might necessitate decentralized internet infrastructure. Unless you fail to understand the topic entirely.

Communication can be accomplished with much less, and necessity is the mother of invention.

Yes, communication can be accomplished, but to what extent depends on your technological capabilities. Mesh radios work for simple text-based messaging with limited bandwidth. Ham radios work for voice. Both of which can be dangerous when a government is actively hostile to radio communications, but there are ways to minimize the risk.

But in the context of maintaining the fediverse when the government tries to eliminate anonymous web use, neither of those things are a replacement.

You might be able to extend a LAN-based intranet by daisychaining wifi receivers, but how far? It'll probably be limited to a few houses or a neighborhood. It won't enable global communication like the modern internet does.

You could pass around USBs to share wikipedia articles and similar databases, but there's no real-time access/communication and this locks out anyone not in the "in-group," so it's not a full replacement either.

So in order to maintain the fediverse and anonymity, you still need some sort of internet infrastructure, which currently is dominated by ISPs and cell carriers. Which, if the government forces them to identify users through verification, will no longer be anonymous. Hence, the need for decentralized internet infrastructure.

We managed to communicate quite effectively by having computers intermittently screeching at each other through a phone line for several decades.

Okay, so you want to go back to using dial-up? Over landline? Is that what you're proposing? Because even that goes through centralized carrier services which could easily be co-opted by an authoritarian government. Not a solution for the topic at hand.

This discussion is about the modern internet being cut off while they try to identify and root out persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime.

Get off your high horse. Yes, the discussion is about the modern internet being cut off. And you can't see how that relates to necessitating a decentralized internet infrastructure to replace the one being locked down?

Those "persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime" can only benefit from a decentralized internet, and you're throwing them out like some token virtue-signaling buzzwords to make yourself sound morally superior, when the argument you're making actively hurts those people by making it easier for the government to root them out in the absence of decentralized communication infrastructure.

Nobody said it was going to be fun and you will still be able to freely watch all the youtube your bored brain can handle while streaming video games on another screen. If that's your expectation, you might as well go sign up for the brownshirts right now

I can only assume this is projection on your part. Is the only use you can think of for a decentralized internet so you can watch youtube and stream video games? Really? Is your imagination that limited?

Funny that you should call me a brownshirt, when you're the one who began your comment by questioning whether we're even "entitled" to a decentralized internet. In the context of a discussion about the government's assaults on anonymity. Do you not realize how fascist that sounds?