The text is longer than I initially noticed so will read it in full later.
But if it keeps going in the idea that the internet needs to be anarchic, I'd advise to be careful with that.
If even one of the sterile, centralizing oligopolies stays like this, it will start absorbing the smaller pieces acting anarchic, inflating again in the process, and by extension it'd keep centralizing.
In this line, I defend primarily the presence of strong competition. In biology, competition is what makes species evolve, and in the free market, it makes services and products improve.
In the biology analogy, the competition between two species of trees may shade the soild, making it moister and thus helping giving space to moss, insects, small animals, bushes and some times also grass, a bustling ecosystem because the trees are competing for sunlight.
In stagnated markets for stuff I follow, and that I've seen in recent years suddenly those seeing competition reappear, after an initial confusion and damage control not dissimilar to the "pororoca" tide, they had to go back to making decent products and services to stay relevant.
And on an adjacent point, anarchy is a state os lawlessness, which isn't true for the internet. Laws change from place to place, but I've yet to see any but very edge cases where stabilished laws don't apply also to the internet.
To say internet should be anarchic could disarm the immediate argument that it is currently lawless, yes. But those trying to pass new internet laws, centralizing governments to my understanding, and perhaps worse than oligopolies (even if those two are usually related afaik), use any excuse to try to force people to accept we need such laws that are effectively censorship and police state bills.
So in short, I think ideally deflation and competition are better solutions, but people should be watchful how "birds of prey" just waiting for a new target react to how such things are conveyed.
And I wrote more than I also expected. Oopsie... e.e"