> I raise the counter that all decentralized systems eventually become centralized once they reach mass appeal.
Not necessarily. Systems built on decentralized protocols can still avoid centralization. We see this with core internet protocols (DNS, BGP, TCP/IP, SMTP, etc.), and modern protocols alike (BitTorrent, XMPP, Matrix, most blockchains, etc.).
It's true that many people may gravitate towards a specific service operating on one of these protocols for whatever reason, and particularly with federated protocols, but it wouldn't be correct to say that e.g. Gmail or Cloudflare DNS are centralized in the same way that e.g. Google Ads or YouTube is.
Even when services built on decentralized protocols become popular, decentralization avoids vendor lock-in by definition, and users are free to choose any other service according to their needs. It also avoids monopolies since anyone else can build a competing service that caters to the same market.
> Your account got taken over? Need to reverse transactions? Need recourse if someone defrauded you? Don’t want to check each factoid you read? Need to ensure that users are not spreading actual terror content?
All of those are service concerns. Yes, they are easier to address when the system is centralized, but not impossible otherwise. The main reason we don't have good decentralized solutions to them is because companies have no incentive to invent them. And in the cases when they do exist, they have no incentive to use them.
I believe this is in large part due to the failing of the WWW to be decentralized from the start. Its original proposal[1] included a phase 2 of the project where "authorship becomes universal", which failed to materialize. This made it lucrative for hosting companies to fill a functional void, which gave way to tech giants, social media, and Big Tech as we know it today. I think we still would've had a need for centralized services regardless, but they would've been much less popular and powerful than they are today.
Even decentralized protocols trend towards centralization at scale. You might not need to use Gmail to do SMTP, but if you want your SMTP sent mail to reach a wide audience smoothly, you’re probably going to wind up buying SMTP forwarding from a centralized source that solves the “trust vs spam” problem. Same with DNS, you don’t need to use cloudflare sure, but ultimately your DNS is only as good as the root servers that everyone else is using too. DNS itself might not be centralized, but all the TLDs absolutely are.
That's not centralization. Specific providers might be more popular than others, but the user always has a choice of which to use. It's a myth that it's not possible to run your own mail server. Many people do so without issues.
DNS is hierarchical, so of course every provider will ultimately peer with the same root servers. And TLDs definitely aren't centralized. They're managed by different companies, and users can use any number of registrars.
It seems that many people here misunderstand what centralization is.
The fact that Google is the largest email provider doesn't mean they have a monopoly on email. That's ridiculous.
Yes, they can take advantage of their position to influence the market and strengthen their position, which would be illegal. They're arguably doing that with Chrome, as Microsoft did decades ago with IE, but that's a legal matter.
The difference with email is that it's possible to use it without depending on Google at all. It is a public service not controlled by any single entity precisely because decentralization is built into the protocols. Again, the popularity of individual providers makes no difference.
Not necessarily. Systems built on decentralized protocols can still avoid centralization. We see this with core internet protocols (DNS, BGP, TCP/IP, SMTP, etc.), and modern protocols alike (BitTorrent, XMPP, Matrix, most blockchains, etc.).
It's true that many people may gravitate towards a specific service operating on one of these protocols for whatever reason, and particularly with federated protocols, but it wouldn't be correct to say that e.g. Gmail or Cloudflare DNS are centralized in the same way that e.g. Google Ads or YouTube is.
Even when services built on decentralized protocols become popular, decentralization avoids vendor lock-in by definition, and users are free to choose any other service according to their needs. It also avoids monopolies since anyone else can build a competing service that caters to the same market.
> Your account got taken over? Need to reverse transactions? Need recourse if someone defrauded you? Don’t want to check each factoid you read? Need to ensure that users are not spreading actual terror content?
All of those are service concerns. Yes, they are easier to address when the system is centralized, but not impossible otherwise. The main reason we don't have good decentralized solutions to them is because companies have no incentive to invent them. And in the cases when they do exist, they have no incentive to use them.
I believe this is in large part due to the failing of the WWW to be decentralized from the start. Its original proposal[1] included a phase 2 of the project where "authorship becomes universal", which failed to materialize. This made it lucrative for hosting companies to fill a functional void, which gave way to tech giants, social media, and Big Tech as we know it today. I think we still would've had a need for centralized services regardless, but they would've been much less popular and powerful than they are today.
[1]: https://www.w3.org/Proposal.html