Fascism is a political phenomenon of the early twentieth century. There are no current politicians who are operating in the early twentieth century. So, to speak of “currently active fascists” is anachronistic. Typically at some point in the discussion someone will cite Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism, but other people do not have to accept his extension of the term past its sell-by date.
For the people currently active in politics who espouse heinous policies sometimes (and sometimes not) reminiscent of fascism, then advocate against those policies directly. Using such a vague umbrella term, and one interpreted by many as a distinct cultural shibboleth, isn’t likely to win over the people you need in order to prevail.
What exactly is your motivation for rejecting the term?
Do you wish to make a constructive point about how we can work to stop this push for tech-autocratic-authoritarianism, and how we need to approach it a little differently than if it were simply fascism?
Or are you just denying that this current movement rhymes with a powerful cultural touchstone, to stymie those who would oppose it?
When your post history is largely political battle (and apparently in contravention of HN guidelines), you’re obviously not asking that question in good faith but rather as some attempt at rhetorical oneupmanship.
The tech industry has created a lot of societal problems that unfortunately now rest solely on politics. The dynamic was much nicer years ago, before billions of dollars were pouring into building wholly non-consensual surveillance systems, when it was possible to focus on constructive code-based approaches to avoiding this control. For example with mere web surveillance on the open web, you could squint and see that it was possible to choose alternatives, use a secure browser, etc. But obviously this doesn't apply to things like ANPR and remote attestation.
I am asking the question in good faith - to see if there is constructive conversation to be had rather than merely quibbling over terminology. That is positively in the spirit of the HN guidelines.
Also I take issue with your characterization of "battle". I am more than willing to entertain political positions that I disagree with. The problem is that I've found very few people who are willing to be honest (including with themselves) and own up to the implications of what they're advocating.
With that line of thinking, you can attribute any ideology to a time period and declare it invalid today.
Professor Jason Stanley who has written two books about the topic calls the current US administration fascist. Similar with professor Timothy Snyder and I think several other respected historians.
Another is we discuss actual policy positions rather than using presumed pejoratives to brand everyone who doesn't agree with us as "literally Hitler!".
We could argue over the definition of fascism and which politicians fit it which might be more productive than accusing posters of being depressed.