Similar to the philosophy behind the "right to bear arms" it's best as a self-imposed framework of checks and balance on the centralized system. The majority of people are better off in a centralized system.
Decentralization is the solution to the "who will guard the guards" problem of power & corruption. I don't currently have a desire to become a gun-prepper-hoarder but living in a country where this is a potential-possibility model of life gives a sense of freedom even as I overly-specialize in typing alphanumeric letters in a specific format and rely on the System to transmute this effort into tokens-of-worth to trade for things like toilet paper and housing rights.
Where Meta and other companies fail here is that they're trying to ride the hype w/o understanding that it's not a feature in of itself but a "meta"-feature to allow for better features.
Decentralization forces the leader to actually lead through leadership qualities. Not through owning 51% of voting rights, not through golden handcuffs, not through implicit H1B or EB1-C visa and greencard threats.
The failure mode for decentralization is when it enforces a meritocracy that no one single human is capable of living up to. The leaders are ceremonial or non-existent.
The desire for decentralized technologies is a frustration with how fallible and incompetent the current set of leaders feel and a desire to shorten or outright eliminate the complexity of the brittle chain of value transformations necessary to maintain a living.
It's a desire to ascend technology into a force of nature like the sun or the wind. This goes against every company's reason-for-being because nature is free while a company is a system that harvests nature and makes a profit by selling customers concentrated forms of it.