To look at it optimistically, or maybe naively, ever increasing centralization will increase our incentive to devise decentralized alternatives and generally de

To look at it optimistically, or maybe naively, ever increasing centralization will increase our incentive to devise decentralized alternatives and generally decrease our tolerance for such colossal clusters of power. Facebook and the like are already profanely large and important. That could be the only reason to give more power to Facebooks of the world – to quicken their downfall. A sort-of test of this theory is the current US administration. During the election, some anti-establishment and left activists called for Trump to be elected. They felt like society didn't want to be fixed, or was beyond fixing. Dishearted, they decided that the faster this unsustainable state of affairs reaches its climax the better. Enter Trump. There's a noteworthy counteracting force though. As, the documentary maker, Adam Curtis argues in HyperNormalisation, for the last few decades, the principal objective of our ruling class is to maintain stability and reduce risk. Risk, as a word, has actually been bizzarely relevant during this time. Look at how its use in the Google Books corpus shoots up starting in the seventies [0]. Of course, virtually any ruling class always opposed power redistribution, but what Curtis is trying to demonstrate is that our current establishment has become extremely adept at it, in part thanks to the advent of computing and internet. An interesting area of focus for socioeconomic studies is how specifically stability of power distribution is maintained, in this day, and how those mechanisms could be compromised. [0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=risk&year_start=1800&year_end=2018&corpus=15&smoothing=0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=risk&year_star...