Dealing with 'fake news' is not about counteracting every piece of it with debunking. It is about addressing: - centralisation of socmed-adtech-media (Vgl DMA, DSA, GDPR, AIR, and on the other end of the spectrum [[Algo amplification of hate speech normalises it 201801113123304]]) - media literacy of the public (Vgl 'Finnish model' and [[Crap detection is civic duty 2018010073052]])

Systems will centralise one step up from where it's decentralised. Interesting. My intuition is a bit 'softer' it's a rule of thumb for coalescence. Things might coalesce out of different needs/circumstances. The type of centralisation intended here, if it's about the silo's there's a external driver, that the easiest business models are found in centralisation as it creates asymmetric power for the centraliser. It's not a necessary outcome of the underlying distributedness, but something that others might need using that distributedness. If centrliasation isn't possible or allowed at some layer, it may well force external drivers for centralisation one layer up. Organisations as well as CoPs are mushrooms on the mycelium of human networks. Now that capital, location and finding colleagues can be done distributedly those mushrooms aren't always needed, and we see other types of mushrooms coalesce alongside classic organisations. Something like that?

Centralization, as a concentration of power, cannot be dismissed as a-political; any program involving power is political, a fortiori for the case of centralization.

Megastructures, however neutral they may seem, are de-facto political, let them be a city skyscraper or a private online platform.

c'est le danger de la centralisation: empêcher l'émancipation de toute identité individuelle (puisqu'il n'y a plus de place pour l'espace privé)