The problem with "fight the status quo" people is that they tend to demand more authoritarianism and centralization to fight something that isn't that bad. Authoritarianism tend to lead to worse outcomes and hurt progress, things progress faster with liberal ideals than authoritarian ideals.
There’s nothing about a “fight the status quo” mentality that inherently favors authoritarianism and it’s not helpful to claim otherwise.
That said, it is helpful to remember both knowing- and unconscious authoritarians will twist any framework into an excuse to establish and flex authority — that’s their whole modus operandi, after all.
If by "centralization" you mean giving more power to central entities that can intervene to fight local abuses and coordinate policies, I don't see a path were we can do without it.
We're in this situation in no small part because big enough companies can just buy their way when facing local entities, and the only recourse that is working is to ask a higher up regulator to intervene. Weakening the regulation entities makes it basically impossible to have anything done.
In particular, I find that "fight the status quo" people want to change some external "system" more than the individual people (ie., themselves). It is easier to blame and demand change of external entities, while being comfortably numb about oneself and one's way of living. For example, see this article by the political professor Eric Kaufmann: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13268
some variants of 'fight the status quo' are explicitly opposing the centralization of power and the too big to fail entities in non-authoritarian societies.
