Discerning when to centralize and when to decentralize

Centralization vs Decentralization

Information in one place would be great, but if it's all in one place, subpoenas are a vulnerability. What's the best way to reorganize data? Social mapping becomes easier when it's centralized.

Decentralizing in politics can defend against opposition.

In a data management context, federated social services across a region can be a compromise between the two.

What does Decentralization look like? Pitfalls?

Don't want to remove local autonomy. Identifying who knows what they're talking about in a given region is good. What is local should stay local. Can Decentralization happen in a non-local context?

The problems of the Democratic Party is a matter of centralization.

Positive things about being diverse. This plays into resiliency. Hosts can be hostile. Centralizing needs to be done intelligently and on friendly platforms.

If you're creating something to bring someone together, can you create value without it being federated? Network effect. Can people not participate in the network if they so choose?

What responsibility do we have with data management? What does it mean for the collective if folks have an off ramp?

How do we not create coercive ways to access tools? You have to create value with each choice. People want control over their data and processes because they want sovereignty.

When you choose a tool, what's the balance of centralization vs decentralization?

Centralization

Rose

• we all know where everything is
• limited who can access it
• folks can contribute together
• more efficient
• more resources to improve
• open discoverability for insights
• easier to manage
• easier for access

Thorn

• everyone knows where everything is
• requires managing more moving pieces
• incorporating too many voices can take time
• ignore user feedback
• inherently creating an opportunity for a bad power dynamic
• can be more resilient
• more complex infrastructure

What's the appetite for risk based on what you want to centralize or decentralize? A big chat room or siloed threads for conversation. The former seems like a security nightmare but can be good for announcements. It wouldn't be good for chatting.

Is there a guide for right sizing organizing structure depending on the context?

An example from a pro-Palestine encampment: Telegram groups for broadcasting. Signal for small chats. Zoom meetings for planning day to day logistics.

Another example: Slack general room for announcements. Smaller rooms for specific topics. Use threaded conversations.

These are a form of an ad hoc social contract about structure.

We generally assume folks are the same. What if there are bad actors? That introduces the Paradox of Tolerance. If you don't adhere to the social contract, you'll be removed.

Counterpoint: what's the difference between a large corporation's terms of service and a small community code of conduct? That latter is more ethical.

If we had a central reference resource, like a directory, for how to find information and data. Not store the information but just provide a way to find it.

Federation could be middle ground between centralization and decentralization.

In a centralized structure you have to collect information, but in a decentralized one folks can do the input.

Ad hoc social contracts: in a community organizing context, do we all know what we've agreed to before we make a decision? There are assumptions and then there is the real conversation that needs to be had.

Participation requires agency. The community needs to be able to determine what's best for itself. But there are things that need to have structure first before that conversation.

Decentralization can build resiliency.

Paradox of Tolerance: To be tolerant you have to be intolerant of intolerance. In a decentralized network, you need a way to moderate intolerance.

Right sizing centralization and decentralization. Approach each situation holistically.

Centralization and decentralization aren't one-size fits all solutions.