> But I would suspect that they see history as pointing to centralized architectures as significantly more vulnerable to being corrupted/controlled. But unless

> But I would suspect that they see history as pointing to centralized architectures as significantly more vulnerable to being corrupted/controlled. But unless there is a workable decentralized alternative the point is moot. I don't see any good reason to avoid using Wikipedia just because it is centralized. I don't see any good reason for Snowden to have avoided using Lavabit (nor its other 400,000 users). Again, I'd speculate that anarchists who aren't technically-minded would probably agree by their actions. Moreover, well-designed, stable decentralized alternatives like git seem to have no problem overtaking their centralized counterparts. So what is the use of equating "centralized" with "bad?"