I guess it depends on your definition of anarchism - there are some bad takes out there. If we're talking about libertarian socialism, or even anarcho-communism, then they're more reflective of anarchism rather than fringe "anarcho-capitalism" and such who put the "individual" at the expense of the "collective" - neither anarcho-communism nor libertarian socialism do that; they're very much about collectivism and direct democracy of that collective rather than representative democracy (elected professional politicians such as members of parliament, senators, etc). Think of the workers cooperative: that's a great example that Noam Chomsky has used to describe anarchism - rather than having state powers or capitalists in control, the workers are in control of the means of production, yet there are, as Richard Wolff points out, still individuals who manage departments or have certain roles of different responsibilities. So in short, I'd say decentralized federated services are definitely a step in the right direction: in theory, with a collectively-agreed code of conduct, where admins are assigned etc, they're not a bad example of anarchism at all in my opinion!