The Inevitability of a Decentralized Internet: Governance and Standards

When one delves into the extensive debate surrounding the future of the internet, the term 'centralized internet' often elicits ambivalence. However, the real inevitability lies not in centralization but in the emergence of a decentralized internet, characterized by a transformation in governance and the realization that large-scale commercial monopolies are not sustainable for the long term.

The Perception of the Decentralized Internet

Lawrence Lundy Bryan's observation, There is no such thing as decentralized governance, challenges the notion that a purely decentralized internet could exist. This paradox underscores the inherent complexity of internet governance in a decentralized model. While the concept of decentralized internet does not necessarily mean decentralized governance, it does imply a shift towards a more distributed and participatory decision-making process.

The Emergence from Centralization

The current commercial internet, characterized by dominant players such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, is indeed transitioning from a centralized model. As users and businesses become increasingly aware of the risks associated with relying solely on a few giants, there is a growing demand for alternatives. This shift is evident in the rise of decentralized platforms and projects that aim to dismantle the current centralized structures.

The primary argument against centralization is rooted in the concept of economies of scale. While large physical networks are critical for infrastructure, the architecture of the internet inherently supports decentralized structures within them. This means that standards and interoperability, rather than central control, are the key drivers of innovation and development in the decentralized internet.

Ambivalence and Deregulation Concerns

On one hand, the idea of a single entity, such as a successor to Enron, controlling the entire internet is extremely concerning. This would lead to a lack of accountability and potential for abuse. On the other hand, distributed systems require centralized standards to function effectively. For example, just as all railroads must use the same gauge tracks, all digital networks must adhere to common standards to ensure interoperability and reliability. These standards are the foundation of a free and open internet, as they allow for a diverse ecosystem of actors and services to coexist and interact.

Marshall McLuhan's prescient warning about the dangers of deregulation in the telecom industry further highlights the need for a balanced approach. While deregulation can promote innovation and competition, it also risks creating a 'medium is the message' scenario, where the medium (the internet) becomes the primary message itself, potentially stifling diversity and reinforcing existing power structures.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The decentralized internet represents a path forward that balances the need for distributed decision-making with the necessity of centralized standards. This transition will not be seamless, but it is inevitable. As technology continues to evolve, we will see a move towards more sustainable and resilient internet architectures, characterized by a mix of centralization in critical areas and decentralization in others.

The journey towards a decentralized internet is not just about technology; it is about fostering a more democratic and equitable digital space. By embracing the principles of decentralization, we can ensure that the internet remains a tool for empowerment, innovation, and freedom.

Keywords: decentralized internet, governance, standards, internet regulation, freedom