>Still, you have to be realistic. After some years I realized that centralization happens because decentralization is in some sense like communism. If you take

>Still, you have to be realistic. After some years I realized that centralization happens because decentralization is in some sense like communism. If you take away ownership over private property then people lose the incentive to improve it. It becomes a commons and the usual tragedy follows. Centralized services are private property, and so the owners make sure they are well kept and improved. Counterpoint: There's plenty of examples of poorly stewarded private property. Probably even moreso than poorly stewarded communal property. You're thinking about the problem at a level of collective action, while completely missing the individuistic level. Care is a finite resource, and exists only on the individual level. It is further fundamentally constrained in bandwidth. A person can only exercise care on so many things at a time, and there is a sizable list of more important things to worry about, often constantly being added to throughout an individual's life. Yet we value the individual's ability to manage their own priorities in terms where they want to allocate their bandwidth; in spite of other work needing to be done. Centralization vs decentralization has no major impact in regards to work getting done, only to how the work gets done, and the accepted tradeoffs we make as a result of working in that modality. In point of fact, it isn't an inevitable consequent of existence that you've come to observe centralization winning out in the end; but rather it is a result of the fact the web was spawned and has matured in a market that first and foremost packages up and organizes the tasks and rewards of labor through the creation of centralizing legal fictions in order to coordinate itself. A society with a hammer, like an individual, is prone to discerning the solution to every problem being the pounding of a nail.