While Google, Amazon, etc. being centralized might be bad in some ways (and good in others), I'm less concerned with that kind of centralization (because there

While Google, Amazon, etc. being centralized might be bad in some ways (and good in others), I'm less concerned with that kind of centralization (because there are alternatives). The most dangerous centralization is at the ISP level, because it's the first gateway to the internet. When I saw the article title I was hoping it would be about that. Unfortunately, wired internet connections make for a really good natural monopoly, so until we have super fast wireless internet everywhere, I don't expect a solution. If any wifi mesh net appears, it would be a good start, but I'm skeptical it would become widespread. The other dangerous centralization of the internet is the DNS system. I know, technically it's decentralized because there even thousands of root name servers. But politically it's centralized under ICANN. Domains are controlled by registrars and governments. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but a truly distributed system would help guarantee a neutral internet. There are some good solutions for this already, namely Namecoin (http://dot-bit.org http://dot-bit.org), which uses proof of work and a bitcoin-like blockchain as a P2P DNS. Namecoin uses the .bit TLD, but probably the largest barrier to adoption is that it's not accessible by default on devices because it's not ICANN sanctioned and therefore not in the root name servers. There are workarounds for this. ICANN could add Namecoin to the root servers but then it would still be under the control of ICANN. The true solution would be for ISPs to add it to their DNS. If the ISP decentralization is solved, this becomes trivial. In my opinion, this is the only real way to guarantee net neutrality and prevent censorship.