sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization. - Reading list/blogrolls please :)
Idk is one state is necessarily more equalibrium-ish, in general. I tend to think it's more of a khaldun-esqu cycle. Decentralisation is often stronger at creativeness & flexibility, so is necessary for innovation. It's good at finding solutions to unarticulated problems. There were multiple centralised/proprietary attempts at inventing the web, but I don't think anything but a decentralised www could have become what it did.
Ceentralised systems have their own strengths.
I agree that Facebook is easier than html, and that the easiest option will win. The interesting (imo) question is "why?"
One reason is undoubtedly economic. There was/is massive incentive to centralize & own chunks of the web. Decentralised www doesn't have that.
Another reason is (imo) related to the "OSS UI" problem. When programming problems are specific and legible (add multiple language support, fix crashing bugs, etc?), OSS works really well. When the problem is "create a fun and intuitive UI" OSS can really suck. IE, Facebook beats www the way osx beats Linux.
Lastly, what level of centralised or decentralised are we looking at.
The www's uses (sites, users, code...) is decentralised but the protocols, browsers, DNS and such are very centralised.
If you want to invent a way of sending a proprietary way of sending a new type of online wink, go ahead. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Getting something new into the official protocols OTOH..... near impossible.
So... In some senses, Facebook was/is the nimble decentralised actor. One of many. The www (the protocols) is/was the monolithic sloth.
Idk is one state is necessarily more equalibrium-ish, in general. I tend to think it's more of a khaldun-esqu cycle. Decentralisation is often stronger at creativeness & flexibility, so is necessary for innovation. It's good at finding solutions to unarticulated problems. There were multiple centralised/proprietary attempts at inventing the web, but I don't think anything but a decentralised www could have become what it did.
Ceentralised systems have their own strengths.
I agree that Facebook is easier than html, and that the easiest option will win. The interesting (imo) question is "why?"
One reason is undoubtedly economic. There was/is massive incentive to centralize & own chunks of the web. Decentralised www doesn't have that.
Another reason is (imo) related to the "OSS UI" problem. When programming problems are specific and legible (add multiple language support, fix crashing bugs, etc?), OSS works really well. When the problem is "create a fun and intuitive UI" OSS can really suck. IE, Facebook beats www the way osx beats Linux.
Lastly, what level of centralised or decentralised are we looking at.
The www's uses (sites, users, code...) is decentralised but the protocols, browsers, DNS and such are very centralised.
If you want to invent a way of sending a proprietary way of sending a new type of online wink, go ahead. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Getting something new into the official protocols OTOH..... near impossible.
So... In some senses, Facebook was/is the nimble decentralised actor. One of many. The www (the protocols) is/was the monolithic sloth.