3 ms·

My interpretation is as follows. Despite the distributed nature of the Internet, the society at large seems to promote centralized services on top of it. One go

My interpretation is as follows. Despite the distributed nature of the Internet, the society at large seems to promote centralized services on top of it. One gov't, one legal system, one language, one search engine etc. Something in the nature of people motivates this type of organization.

ontouchstart 10y ago
Some sort of social cost?
tremon 10y ago
Something in the nature of people motivates this type of organization Network effect.
darpa_escapee 10y ago
There's a lot of money in ensuring you're the only guy on the block doing what you do. I wouldn't confuse the effects of the profit motive with some nature people have for centralization. My friends, myself and even my mother were content with the disparate isles of the net 20+ years ago.
AngrySkillzz 10y ago
This is definitely true. What would you rather do: buy everything from Amazon, or have a big list of distributors that you can shop and for individual categories like books, office supplies, electronics, etc.? Would you rather have to keep track of some of your friends on Google+, some on Facebook, some on Myspace, some on Diaspora, or just have them all in one place? There is a usability problem with distributed services in this way.
scholia 10y ago
See: Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality by Clay Shirky (February 8, 2003) http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/powerlaw_weblog.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/powerlaw_w... "In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. This has nothing to do with moral weakness, selling out, or any other psychological explanation. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution." For a much bigger look at similar effects, see Critical Mass by Philip Ball https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Mass-Thing-Leads-Another/dp/0099457865 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Mass-Thing-Leads-Another/d...

ontouchstart 10y ago

Some sort of social cost?

tremon 10y ago

Something in the nature of people motivates this type of organization Network effect.

darpa_escapee 10y ago

There's a lot of money in ensuring you're the only guy on the block doing what you do. I wouldn't confuse the effects of the profit motive with some nature people have for centralization. My friends, myself and even my mother were content with the disparate isles of the net 20+ years ago.

AngrySkillzz 10y ago

This is definitely true. What would you rather do: buy everything from Amazon, or have a big list of distributors that you can shop and for individual categories like books, office supplies, electronics, etc.? Would you rather have to keep track of some of your friends on Google+, some on Facebook, some on Myspace, some on Diaspora, or just have them all in one place? There is a usability problem with distributed services in this way.

scholia 10y ago

See: Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality by Clay Shirky (February 8, 2003) http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/powerlaw_weblog.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/powerlaw_w... "In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. This has nothing to do with moral weakness, selling out, or any other psychological explanation. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution." For a much bigger look at similar effects, see Critical Mass by Philip Ball https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Mass-Thing-Leads-Another/dp/0099457865 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Mass-Thing-Leads-Another/d...