Edit: I'm a so-called decentralization advocate and I'd add on to this to say that the big problem we have right now is that people don't think we need decentralization at all. Something like this might change some minds.
Sure, from a technical point of view. But governments and the general public won’t necessarily see a lack of control over the content as something good or even legal. I expect to see some clash and fight over those questions if a significant number of 4chan/8chan users start to migrate to decentralized platforms.
Disclaimer: Take the below images with a grain of salt, I wasn't able to verify how they were generated.
Internet Connectivity in 2003 vs 2010 via The Opte Project:
2003: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/110263#
2010: https://equipping4eministry.com/2015/03/05/a-visual-look-at-...
Unfortunately opte.org appears to be down at the moment (the irony) so I had to dig these ones up. To me, this is a visualization of what the current status quo is as far as those in power "addressing" the issue of content.
If you can get 99% of the people using the same websites that are compliant with what the governments think are okay, then the 1% doesn't matter too much. So we saw things quietly shifting toward this paradigm. The way I see it is that the <1% who know how to use the dark web are going to not matter to the governments too much, as long as that number of people stays low. Significant numbers of 4chan and 8chan users and others migrating might raise that number to a point where you'll start to see more proactive measures taken.
But actions like these taken by Australia and NZ (using iron instead of velvet) will only accelerate the number of people interested in alternatives, and would therefore undermine the status quo strategy I outlined above.
Anyway none of those are going to be as big an issue as when people start to share stuff on freenet, if only because when they are forced to put it there, there is no filter between them and untraceable child porn.