But it's not because each node is still controlled by someone who can choose what's on it and who has access

Which is why it isn't each node that is the commons, but the entirety of the ecosystem.

You're collateralizing bad mortgages and rating them AAA.

I think the central question is how people can collectively own a node and organize its decision making. Federation of dictatorships is not a democracy, it's feudalism.

You're in danger of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Email is far from perfect, but good enough and its federated nature means it's reasonable for institutions to use it as a default mode of communication and authentication.

What exactly is the alternative to federation? Is it possible for everyone to be their own admin?

In any case, under feudalism serfs didn't have the freedom to choose and switch their feudal lord as they saw fit.

Your statement quietly assumes that being able to accurately call it a "commons" is desirable. Who cares, it might be good even if it's not a commons.

I assumed that private or corporate control over something that becomes a default communications network is undesirable, because that was a basis for the discussion I was replying to.

I also believe it. I don't want to have to subject myself to the X dumpster fire or sign away my data to Facebook just to receive communications from my local police department or child's school.

Huh that’s a great way of putting it.

These ‘federated’ systems are just recreating feudalism in cyberspace.

Edit: Well even worse in some ways, since it’s not like a majority of the ‘gentry’ and ‘nobles’ could challenge and seize control of e.g. a Mastodon instance from the owner.