7 ms·

Centralization is an inherently human condition where we tend to entrust relatively successful entities with more power, such as a corporation choosing the "bes

Centralization is an inherently human condition where we tend to entrust relatively successful entities with more power, such as a corporation choosing the "best" cloud vendor, or people joining the same social network as their friends. Is it even possible for the IETF (or a similar standardization body) to mitigate it?

cowtools 4y ago
Yes. You have made a false/weak assumption. Humans do not always favor centralization, if we did then you would expect our society to be eusocial like bees or ants or something. Humans aren't machines, we adjust our level of cooperation and competition to suit our environment, and the technology in our environment can either favor centralization or decentralization of social structures.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> Centralization is an inherently human condition I disagree. Humans are successful because we exhibit rather few immutable "inherent conditions", and there's volumes of literature from the anthropologists on that flexibility. Maybe what you mean is that systems (which complex societies and networks are) exhibit, amongst other things, an inherent possibility of agglomeration. Sometimes we call that a "network effect" - power to the powerful, riches to the rich, and so on. Yes that's true of inanimate systems, like star formation. Human beings, and indeed other life forms, offer the precise counter to that force in being agents that choose an optimal level of proximity and connectivity. I like to use the analogy of matter, balanced between strong and weak forces of repulsion and attraction. People have a Goldilocks point for connection complexity, as seen in Robin Dunbar's number or George Miller's magic "seven plus or minus two", and this replicate at various levels of organisational scale as people like Thomas Schelling and Fred Brooks have indicated. Unfortunately the way "network effects" are talked about today in tech creates a distortion around such dynamic equilibriums, painting them as necessarily "winner takes all". > Is it even possible for the IETF (or a similar standardization body) to mitigate it? That's a really good question. And several questions inside it to unpack. Their remit? Their capability? Their moral role? I think the answer is broadly "Yes" (to all), but for small values of "it". What requires and deserves protection (morally), and can be protected (practically via regulation), is the substrate on which other things are built. In the IETF document, protocols like IP, TCP and DNS are mentioned frequently, but obviously there's a much larger suite. That, in concert with anti-trust, competition and interoperability laws will allow choice around as much or little centralisation as people want. The idea that new protocols should continue to adhere to the same standards and values as the foundation is the thrust (insofar as I read it). IETF say there cannot be an "Internet Police" but in many ways that's exactly what is needed, and maybe what they wish they are - in a benevolent sense. Because ultimately the corporations are their own worst enemy. They will destroy the foundation on which they're built. Like a child that needs guidance, organisations like IETF act as a parent to stop cannibalism. Or, as verbal-judo proponent George Thompson said... "to help you make the best decisions for yourself now, that you would make if you were thinking clearly in some future frame of regret."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

cowtools 4y ago

Yes. You have made a false/weak assumption. Humans do not always favor centralization, if we did then you would expect our society to be eusocial like bees or ants or something. Humans aren't machines, we adjust our level of cooperation and competition to suit our environment, and the technology in our environment can either favor centralization or decentralization of social structures.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> Centralization is an inherently human condition I disagree. Humans are successful because we exhibit rather few immutable "inherent conditions", and there's volumes of literature from the anthropologists on that flexibility. Maybe what you mean is that systems (which complex societies and networks are) exhibit, amongst other things, an inherent possibility of agglomeration. Sometimes we call that a "network effect" - power to the powerful, riches to the rich, and so on. Yes that's true of inanimate systems, like star formation. Human beings, and indeed other life forms, offer the precise counter to that force in being agents that choose an optimal level of proximity and connectivity. I like to use the analogy of matter, balanced between strong and weak forces of repulsion and attraction. People have a Goldilocks point for connection complexity, as seen in Robin Dunbar's number or George Miller's magic "seven plus or minus two", and this replicate at various levels of organisational scale as people like Thomas Schelling and Fred Brooks have indicated. Unfortunately the way "network effects" are talked about today in tech creates a distortion around such dynamic equilibriums, painting them as necessarily "winner takes all". > Is it even possible for the IETF (or a similar standardization body) to mitigate it? That's a really good question. And several questions inside it to unpack. Their remit? Their capability? Their moral role? I think the answer is broadly "Yes" (to all), but for small values of "it". What requires and deserves protection (morally), and can be protected (practically via regulation), is the substrate on which other things are built. In the IETF document, protocols like IP, TCP and DNS are mentioned frequently, but obviously there's a much larger suite. That, in concert with anti-trust, competition and interoperability laws will allow choice around as much or little centralisation as people want. The idea that new protocols should continue to adhere to the same standards and values as the foundation is the thrust (insofar as I read it). IETF say there cannot be an "Internet Police" but in many ways that's exactly what is needed, and maybe what they wish they are - in a benevolent sense. Because ultimately the corporations are their own worst enemy. They will destroy the foundation on which they're built. Like a child that needs guidance, organisations like IETF act as a parent to stop cannibalism. Or, as verbal-judo proponent George Thompson said... "to help you make the best decisions for yourself now, that you would make if you were thinking clearly in some future frame of regret."

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]