That’s why understanding decentralization is so important: so we can create a structure that keeps interest groups disaggregated enough so no one can take that much power.

I’m a little baffled by the idea that the internet intrinsically supports a decentralized, free media (the so-called “good news”). Look at Google and China. A few years ago, China’s media watchdogs automatically rerouted users from Google (the American site, which does not filter content) to “safe,” government-censored sites, especially during times of political turmoil. In 2005, Google China was founded and, despite Google’s staunch support of network neutrality, it agreed to comply with China’s strict internet censorship laws. Today, Chinese users can google like the rest of us with one glaring exception: if they search PRC-interdicted words, their results will be blocked. So much for “don’t be evil.”

Sure this is an extreme case of government kowtowing, but it still stands as evidence that information disseminated via the internet is not necessarily decentralized or free.

Wheeww. That wasn’t so bad. And it was over so fast. Hopefully, it gets better the more I do it.

First, I’d like to note that the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan and Nazism all used the centralization of media to control their populations. A college of corporations finance the media that the developed world interacts with on a daily basis. That media has created an environment in which the developed nations exploit the undeveloped ones.

On the flip side, the increasingly sophisticated media has been an integral player in the pacification of the world. While we read about conflicts throughout the world on a day to day basis, the fact of the matter is that, on a per capita basis, there have been fewer and fewer people involved in wars every decade this century. Centralized media has certainly contributed to thais pacification: uniting disparate people under a single ‘mainstream’ culture powered by the publishing film production and music industries and distributed via TV, radio, print, etc. This shared culture has, in my view, allowed nationalism to get expressed via soccer matches instead of armed conflict, it has educated masses of people in ways that have produced amazing humanitarian benefit. Positive or negative? It’s hard to tell without knowing how the whole story ends.

Individuals have more choices in the supermarket but society has less choices about what we eat. Americans can buy 100 differently colors packages containing wheat + high fructose corn syrup but they can’t buy locally baked breads. I can get blueberries from Argentina in the winter but I can’t get blueberries grown within 50 miles in summer. (An exaggeration but you get the point.)
The corporate takeover of farming in the 1980s and the horrific practices of Monsanto who have systemically destroyed the natural variety of crops so they could corner the market on seeds is not discussed in the media; nor are the potential dangers of trusting a few crop varieties (and corporations) to feed the entire globe. What a more important story than how we get our food? The media is silent on the issue.

Is food safer? I don’t know what that means. Is it healthier? For individuals there are healthier choices now than before WWI but we’re a nation of diabetics. Coca Cola, McDonalds produce stunningly unhealthy products but have the loudest voice because they have the advertising dollars.

We can do better (more local, more natural, more nutritious) if we use the same ingenuity that brought us last century’s agricultural revolution instead of heaping praise (or implying praise) on a system that is now outdated.

Simple: I agree with the implication of your comment. Ron Paul, AdBusters and many many others have been warning about this financial crisis for years but the centralized, corporate media did not give their voices the platform they deserved. A more decentralized media would have kept us better informed.

Do you have any evidence (nationwide evidence, not anecdotal health scares that get picked up in the media) that food today is less safe than food from 100 years ago?

Factory farming, for all its downsides, has made food incredibly cheap and abundant. Almost all segments of society have a variety of food options that would be available only to the richest 0.001% of people 100 years ago. The increase in calorie intake over the last several hundred years has also enabled us to live much longer and work much more (more calories = more energy).

I’m down with Michael Pollan on a lot of issues but I still think it’s worth pointing out that, on net, the changes in our food system from the 19th century were highly beneficial.

Decentralized media means more journalism financed by non profits and more writing (and content creation) done by individuals without a profit motive. This is the decentralization that the internet can facilitate.