i think we're disagreeing on whether any level of centralization is acceptable, or even good (with centralization defined principly as the consolidation of peop

i think we're disagreeing on whether any level of centralization is acceptable, or even good (with centralization defined principly as the consolidation of people and resources here). i'd contend that yes, some degree of centralization is beneficial, but too much centralization gets overwhelmed by negative repercussions. in this specific case, imagine if we had thousands of mini-youtubes, each with their own curational quirks. no single mini-youtube could unduly influence the whole zeitgeist. most (all?) will be flawed in their curatorial duties, but none could move public opinion in any meaningful way. viewers could also jump from one to another and be exposed to many different editorial perspectives, even without necessarily being cognizant of that. however, if every mini-youtube were relegated to being a single person each (i.e., no centralization), then we'd lose the benefits of aggregation and curation. the problem of course, is that we societally accept size and growth as good things, and i'm arguing that they're only good to a certain point (and see your argument as saying all centralization is bad), and that we need to change incentives as a function of size/centralization, so that we get right-sized organizations, rather than unaccountable behemoths. our current incentives make right-sizing an unstable equilibrium point on that curve, which is why it doesn't happen.