It's just a server, not governance over their collective. Ideally they had backups or people owned their own data on a DHT or Blockchain. Otherwise the administrator has custody over the data...similar to a bank having custody over funds. My understanding is if someone breaks the trust, the victims would have a way to settle grievances...probably through a fine or some other financial means.

Never, EVER get into a semantic debate with people who are lying to themselves.

no you don't understand their hierarchy is totally temporary and they can just change it at any time unlike 'unjustified' hierarchies, also everything will just operate on a gift economy and somehow no one will exploit this

> You realize that heirarchy is exactly how you enforce rules, correct? You can't enforce rules without heirarchy.

That's not necessarily true, is it? All participants of an instance or group could practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy to form and enforce a set of rules without hierarchies. Not saying that's what happened here though...

I hear the analogy of nations having an anarchist relationship with each other. There is no hierarchy of soverign nations but there certainly are power dynamics. If one nation breaks a treaty, for example, the other nation delivers some form of punishment as a deterrence.

What does it matter what I realize? I was explaining what anarchists believe, and why "you have rules!!!" is not some sort of clever gotcha. As an adult human, I'm fully capable of understanding beliefs without sharing them.