Centralization is better than decentralization in 99% of cases, but the 1% is really important: when the centralized system fails, or is controlled by an adversary (e.g. malicious government).
IMO decentralized internet (and social media and currency) should be possible, routinely tested, and readily-available when the centralized internet fails. But a neutral, trusted, central server will is basically always preferred when it is available.
> Centralization is better than decentralization in 99% of cases
This is way overgeneralizing, and not remotely true for a large swathe of things. Centralized systems are actually less efficient unless the central agent is a party to every interaction due to the nature of the system. If the central agent is only a party by virtue of the imposed structure, you've created overhead, made the system difficult to change, and made it brittle to variance from design assumptions.
Decentralized systems can evolve much more rapidly, can survive catastrophic variance, and are more efficient in a large number of cases.
Centralizing mail delivery works well, centralizing economies or ecosystems does not.
> Centralizing mail delivery works well, centralizing economies or ecosystems does not.
Take the set of all systems conceivably used by human beings. Email providers, social networks, parent-teacher associations, dungeons and dragons campaign groups, neighborhood watches, everything.
Now, classify each of those things into one of two groups: either "more like the USPS" or "more like national economies". What is the ratio of "USPS-alike" groups, versus "national economy-ish" groups?
What does the obvious answer to this question -- 100% vs. 0% -- tell you about the relevance of centralization vs. decentralization?
IMO decentralized internet (and social media and currency) should be possible, routinely tested, and readily-available when the centralized internet fails. But a neutral, trusted, central server will is basically always preferred when it is available.