C is for Control, Censorship, and Centralization. -- Everything wrong with Network Centralization.

pangoli (69)in #decenternet • 8 years ago

_{[Image source: [Anuvys](https://anuvys.com/)]}

Over the years, the internet has seen some great improvements that have not only made it faster and more efficient but also a lot more far-reaching and pretty effective as well. Nowadays, we have better programmes and scripts, better applications and different software to raise the online experience a few notches as well as tools to make work and play smarter. Today, there is probably nothing one would do without consulting the internet in some way. Whether it's for study or research purposes, or simply as a means to spend time and have some fun time with family and friends that are far away.

What's centralization anyway, and how centralized is the internet?

_{The difference between a decentralized and a centralized internet connection. Image: thewindowsclub, Licensed for reuse..}

The early model of the internet was pretty much decentralized with stand-alone networks that may or may not connect with other networks. It was based on peer to peer connections rather than designed network topologies that would require connections to be made through single mandatory points. However, as we progressed in technology, we say the uses of hubs and network passes which, not only made connections pretty much smoother and easier to understand but also allowed for a more centralized model to slowly emerge. Today, we can say that the internet is even more centralized than it is decentralized, and that is because very few websites and tools enjoy the majority of the attention.

When we discuss centralization as a word, we think about something having a central point at the core of authority. A focal point and a public figure/order on which everything else within its jurisdiction answers to. On the positives, it involves order, different levels of authority, and control of scarce resources. However, when looking at the darker side, data manipulation, monopoly and abuse of power, the abuse of trust, and the abuse of privileges comes to mind. We begin to find that in a lot of ways, it is hard to trust humans completely. Hence, centralization breeds manipulation and censorship on different levels. Oftentimes, It depicts a closed group of people wielding control over important resources or technologies, and they use this to control other individuals whenever it is convenient for them. It promotes inequality and imbalance in a lot of ways, which of course, is always skewed to favour the few names in the corridors of power.

Having established that the internet affects how we feel and respond to daily events and news to a large percentage, one way to imagine network centralization on the internet is when a particular server controlled by a privately-owned company or an organization becomes too powerful, enough to dominate and control just the kind of information you see, and your behaviour online. Imagine a doctored news report showing up on the network news at the head of state's behest, so as to control the price action of a commodity, or incite extreme emotions. Happens even more frequently than we have ever realized.

What else is wrong with network centralization?

_{CCO licensed, pxhere.}

Basically, it's a lot.

Sure, centralization does have its perks. with every data having to pass through a predetermined topology of network, it is easy to keep track of everything and rogue people get busted every now and then. However, it goes pretty sour when things aren't kept in check or there are no ethics. With centralization, results could be altered, and all sorts of manipulation could take place.

Lack of competition

First off, Centralization isn't as much as competitive as a decentralized model. This further bolsters the position of the central authority and takes away the chance of visibility for better alternatives.

Take Google for example, which single-handedly is the first-choice search engine for about 50% of the total internet users these days. The competition is very little in comparison to decentralized ecosystems, and through paid ads from deep pockets, Google can decide which information you get to see first. Very unlike decentralized systems where every piece of information has a level playing field.

Privacy concerns.

Also, there are serious privacy concerns. A lot of programmes and services on the internet run on these centralized systems, which simply means two things. First is that they own the architecture and cells in which your data is kept, and secondly. since they built these systems like a business model with control in mind, they have direct access to your most privy information.

_{CCO licensed, Flickr.}

Sure, there are often several pages of the ''terms and conditions'' that they abide by, but exactly how private and safe are your most secret information when it's out there on a common server? Just to be clear, no one ever stops to read the terms and conditions (at least 99% of internet users don't), and over time, we have seen corporations breach the terms of contract by giving away a part of users' information to agencies in return for profit without anyone ever knowing about it. It would shock you to see just how much data some of these centralized services on the internet have gathered over the years about you, and what they use it for.

Want an example? According to The Guardian, a Tinder user found out the service has 800 pages’ worth of her darkest secrets. For those who might be wondering what Tinder is, it is a dating platform that matches users by preferences the user sets by himself/herself. Since it is privately owned by a company, it's pretty amazing the kind of information they would have about their users, given what the site is about.

The truth remains that by using these centralized services, we provide just enough data for them to connect the dots and pry into our personal lives. We cannot feel data, and it is normal for us to forget a lot of these occurrences as we move on (especially the ones we aren't proud of), but they don't.

Very minimal Incentivization.

Okay, let's ignore privacy concerns for a minute. The information out there on the internet about me was put out there by me in the first place, and there are just enough people who have no problem with sharing a part of their lives with others through social mediums, dating platforms, and even x-rated sites. The big question is; How much do we get in return for that, really?

_{[Image: Wiki commons, CCO licensed]}

Feel like running the numbers? Facebook's net income rose from $7.87 billion in 2013 to an estimated value of $40.7 billion in the year 2017. How many slices did you get outta that pie? The plugins and fancy stuff you see that are supposedly meant to 'maximize users' experience' and make the internet a fun place are just fine. But to be crude with words, they are really meant to keep you online for as long as possible while money is being made off you. I thought we were all in this together?

Security concerns. -- If you don't have the keys, it's not yours!

In a centralized system, you don't have the master key to any asset you own. Since everything is kept in a particular place, there are issues bothering on the security of the information should malicious actors gain control even for a few hours. Billions of funds and financial data could get missing, causing a lot of problems for the company involved but most especially, the client whose data was stolen.

_{CCO licensed, Pxhere.}

To prove this point, perhaps we should take our minds back to the Mt. Gox incident. Mt. Gox was a Tokyo-based centralized bitcoin exchange which witnessed 2 hacks (first in 2011 and then in February 2014) that finally resulted in the loss of over $500 million worth of bitcoin 'as at that time'. Makes me wonder what that same amount of bitcoin would be worth today since the price value has appreciated significantly from what it used to be in 2014. It is a sad story to tell because a lot of people lot their fortunes. Whether this was a real hack or simply data manipulation at best, it is out of scope for this article.

Hence we preach Decentralization, which brings the assurance that since every user is responsible for their data, censorship and all forms of data manipulation would be minimized greatly. Also, the term 'hack' would cease to exist since there is only one way your assets could ever leave your jurisdiction - by transfer of ownership-.

But of course, this does not mean that there aren't disadvantages to a decentralized internet. There are disadvantages, which would be discussed in a different article. However, weighing both sides, we find freedom and equal rights far more compelling than you might have been told!

I believe in decentralization and freedom to decide what we want. And i believe no other project better represents the whole aims and objectives of decentralization yet like the blockchain-powered libertarian ecosystem - Decenternet.

If I've got your attention and interest piqued and you'd like to know more, you may go on to check out my previous post titled: Decenternet to the rescue by clicking on the link, or simply browse through the trending page of the tag here