I share the same ideals as mentioned in this article, but implementation is what matters. The person who wrote this article references mastodon as an example of the small web, but just looking at mastodon, you can see that is not what happens. Mastodon has a couple of very large hosts with thousands or hundreds of thousands of users, exactly the same as the big web that the author describes. This is because people think "well, why go to the trouble of setting all of this stuff up myself, I will just create an account on one of the existing hosts", and then you just have the big web again.
I think there is a huge difference between deciding to sign up on a huge host vs having to use the big host.
Mastodon maybe isn't the best example of this as IIUC you will get some visibility to other users on your host by default. But for example email you may choose to use GMail or Outlook because it takes no effort, but there is little downside to choosing another host.
On Mastodon you can choose among dozens of servers, you can decide to change server and still be able to use Mastodon. Now compare that with Youtube or Twitter. You can fix some aspects using browser extensions[1] or clients[2] but by and large, if you don't like something about the platform, the only available choice is leaving.
