Centralization means easier driver for those who centralize and SPOFs. We centralize anytime we want an easy path even if it's fragile, and always resulting con

Centralization means easier driver for those who centralize and SPOFs. We centralize anytime we want an easy path even if it's fragile, and always resulting consequences are bad after a short "honeymoon" timeframe. My conclusion then is different: we need common ideas, common tools not centralization. What's wrong with the classic web? Well that information access without search engines was a nightmare, but there is no need of "central" search engines as network hubs. YaCy offer an example FLOSS implementation of a distributed search network whose effectiveness much depend on numbers of indexing peers. In a fully "common web" all who host html pages also participate in the search distributed network and search quality became excellent, than some argue we can also distribute webpages like the ZeroNet idea and a new VERY FAST and VERY EFFECTIVE web is here. Oh, it's utopia just because of big players interests against the most and ignorance of the most, witch is not a technical thing. And that's just an example. Logistic networks are another example where the centralized free scale network is easier than a hub-less network, but fragile, while a hub-less network is hard to keep, especially if not all nodes cooperate, but far more resilient. The same happen in politics with historical absolute monarchy vs democracies and pretty anywhere else. My final reminder: in winter is cold, in summer is hot, sometimes is too dry, sometimes too wet, we human as essentially any living being have tried our best to "mitigate" such natural phenomenon to live better. If certain free-scale networks are a natural thing that does not means we have to accept them without trying to made something better for us.