I have never seen a convincing argument of the claim that decentralization creates worse outcomes for fighting disinformation. I think decentralization/federat

I have never seen a convincing argument of the claim that decentralization creates worse outcomes for fighting disinformation. I think decentralization/federation [1] strongly improves systemic stability by enabling diversity and a hearty turnover of a variety of different curation approaches towards content. The way I see it, even if there’s no powerful central authority (supposedly exploiting economies of scale) controlling the spread of disinformation, the lack of a curatorial monoculture intrinsically limits the reach/damage of parasites (and also reduces the value of “hacking” that oversight process, since the payoff/reach is limited). The monoculture of a large platform with homogeneous policies creates the problem in the first place, and then needs to solve it. On top of this, especially when the fundamental problem is enforced homogeneity against the wishes of the people, centralized governance is never going to be a satisfactory solution, even with a constitution — because that requires the underlying values to be shared, and the population on the internet is too diverse for that. [1]: Protocols rather than platforms https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a...