That may have been the original point of blockchain, but control over money is still a pretty political issue. Accordingly, anyone who creates or transacts currency, regardless if done by fiat or mathematics, will necessarily wade into local political and social restrictions.
Bitcoin is impressive technology and definitely brought a nice jab to government monetary control, but it does not seem to be able to deliver a knock-out. No government will give up control over monetary policy without a fight. If governments can't control bitcoin directly, they'll do so indirectly (making them difficult to cash-out, blocking IPs, straight-up making it illegal).
It's yet another example of tech's beautifully orchestrated high-minded ideals, that come crashing down when they meet real power and reality.
My worry is that this teaches tech companies even more that they should get into politics, because that is the only way to enact their vision.
I like the idea that money transfers shouldn't cost essentially anything and should be instant. I think it's a shame that we don't already have that, but I'm just worried that this will give too much power to companies like FB.
Libra is meant to hold an fiat backing balance by users putting money in. Facebook gets to reap 100% of the interest on said fiat with no money going to users, ever. They document it as such in their "whitepaper".
It's basically a scheme to create serfs.
The fuss is that even if Facebook fully decentralizes Libra, they'll probably own an undisclosed amount of it. One entity starting with most of the wealth defeats the purpose of decentralization.