[ better scalablity → (with) → powerful tech. resource → (comes) → more cost ].

DAS soon realized that there is a potential loooooopy thing going on here and its pattern can be deduced earlier and thus can be solved by projecting the trajectory making the service virtually endless, with constant update of technological resources & technology itself that suits centralized services.

Logging meta information of service, as well as users will help improve the service for better & moreover projects the service as some form of endless resource to the user - that can potentially drive them to log their personal datas, files, resources for better reliability and backup. Furthermore, some users might use the resources provided by the service as the facilitator for his/her requirement. Thus, providing reliable service or abstracting by simulating reliability by obscuring hard and dirty jobs behind the user interface of the service will tie them to the service.

This mechanism, always increases the social capital capacity influx & the mechanism is only regulated by the policy guidelines which itself could be changed at any point of time as the owner - DAS sees it fit !

When a conflict occurs between the users or between the user and the authority whom DAS has signed a contract/ agreement, that abides the constitution and governance of the university, the final decision and action completely depends upon the DAS's discretion. Whooooooooooa ! complete control. Why ? with so much social capital derived from the users through complete psychological dependency, any authority would not even try to restrict the growth of the service. Furthermore, when the service is completely run by the capital invested by the users, DAS, would have to just go check the policy, which everybody agreed and take so and so action ! remember: the policy itself, can be changed with time as per owner/investors/funders wish.

It is the effect that we experience through the services and problems we face with it. Centralization in topology is so popular because of its control ability that allows administration and management tasks to be completed with ease. The problem is internet as envisoned by the commons is actually against licensing, administration, centralized control, filtering, surveillance, and so on... With centralization, identification & control becomes easier which made the services built with it under a single point of administration.

However, presently, most of the services once popular undergo a series of decentralization process - but only for redundancy & cooking reliability. This does not make the whole infrastructure decentralized or federated. No control is provided to the user. Still the same Server & Client communication is handled. All that the current structure does is to shift their servers to locations to improve localized service, redundancy, backup strength, better service rechability etc... This ensures the continued ease of maintenance and administration while giving control to the establishment that constructs the infrastructure. Decentralization for better service, presence, competing for social capital, conquering minds through emotional ads & providing attractive reliable service - does not mean dissolving centralized depdnency & authority.

...we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors...

- Buckminster Fuller

At best we could only see decentralization as a transition strategy, to shift to a new way of organized society. Centralization at the top level or at the bottom level, leave us with only with establishment of hierarchy of power and control over others. Ultimately Centralization will go hand in hand with Hierarchy for those who desires to line their pockets with profits and power - all in good intention of course.

Mutates Intention & Ends with Irreversible Complications

Every business and entrepreneurship intention need not be profit motive, and when there are ones that can care about other stuff that matters instead on profit alone - good intentions seems not enough for desired social progression. Most of the present day Information based business empires that rely heavily on Communication Networks, Internet, & Web will promulgate some sort of good intention out of their centralization effort. But it is a well known fact, that good intentions alone shall not take to the place we desired to go. How we attain the goal is also a much more vital factor. Reaching the goal somehow through any means possible are the characteristics of desperate lunatics and has a indirect sociopath behavior. Such desires and business and economic structures constructed out of it have to mutate people to stay ignorant, to not dissent, to just follow, to trust and believe in somebody, etc. Such systems also does not have a socio-economic transition plan that is democratic. All the transition they bring in the name of disruption, is a preambulating tactic with peoples as honest begging consumers in it. But all that is for reaching the "rational, wonderful, greater good intention".

Thinking abount it one can see, it not only subjugates people in variety of forms, but also pressures the centralization authority to ask consent from every individual whenever a request or task associated with the individual subscribed to the system is queried. This adds burden to the authority to keep track of consent as proof of communication. This cascades the necessity to further crave for centrally controlled identification & tracking systems. Centralization for access through transfer of responsibility manifests as power, involves transfer of liberty too. Such actions most of the times end up with irreversible complications and socio-economic injustices which human history has a good track record. Ends with universal sufferage but begins with good intentions, & we know it struggled to attain that good intention. What a waste.

• Consenting transaction strains Economic conditions
• Centralized infrastructure eats more Labour, more Energy
• Becomes the seed of vicious cycles that perpetuates itself
• Centralization gravitates Space-Time-Economic fabric
• Collected individual responsibility translates into Power
• With Responsibility individual & social liberty is compromised
• Whatever the central power thinks become rational by default
• Whatever the central power declares become definition

Hierarchy is a informational & mathematical structure that helped us to organize information and memory. It is so basic that without such interpretation of classification & grouping of information, knowledge organization would become so hard to manage. Usually centralized architectures, and thus the infrastructures following it use the hierarchical management strategy, because of its efficiency. When the services becomes large scalability is a vital issue which is so far solved with hierarchy and centralization.

So, hierarchy can be seen wherever we try to classify things for clarity and to study about the behavior of a phenomenon. Its purpose best suits for that. But when we have inequality and with all good intentions to end it by utilizing all liberal systems have resulted only in seriously limited solutions - if at all they work in relaity. It comes to a position where solutions that have hierarchical implementation that creeped inherent differences as layers of job/duty in an organization, solicited by labour skill working together to solve a social problem -- are ending up with only scratching their backs by attaining only a moral satisfaction without ever solving the problem in reality. One shall have a satisfaction that they have done something towards addressing the problem which gaurds them from future criticism. A hierarchical model which inherently follows hierarchical power and communication relations, manifestation of non-cooperative principles, will not able to understand the problem in first place.

- attributed to : Barry Deutsch

Using Hierarchy only where, why & when necessary, seriously need to be relearned in society. It is important because when we see a easier construct to organize ourselves we tempt to deploy it in all places regardless of their mismatch. When such habit becomes a defacto model, then as a soceity we become homogenous in organizing ourselves. Such actions indoctrinate motivational reasoning to learners and teachers that further precedents anyone to use the same models in business, politics, policy making, resource management, economics... etc.,.

When business systems that religiously followed the centralized, hierarchical models with primary motive of profit started visualizing internet as a medium of business transaction and market place to exchange commodities, the real utility of internet started undergoing a change that encouraged other business to shift their operations that dealt with information process bind with internet. This is not only economic, but also help spread the business further forming a near ideal situation for market competition.

By late 1990's and 2000's innovation of information technology and the availability of ever expanding fundamental global network infrastructure through under sea optical fibre cables, satellites, microwave stations,... business investment ascended with rich venture capital fueled startups that started providing services which essentially depends on the information from their clients. Since these startups were keen in making products and services that connect them directly to the public, a huge spike in their revenue model is witnessed.

This model has essentially supplied people with lost cost or almost free of money services, social networks, communication gadgets, etc. To make the services more reliable technically more data and information processing power is required. To collect data, the consumer has to be persuaded or mandated softly to supply the data required to the service infrastructure. Most of the time these services are of closed nature, and nobody had the slightest idea of how they do of what they do. The problem in simple terms could be understood by interpreting the above diagram. The business incentives cries to actually construct centralized hierarchical companies and startups with :

• Huge Computational Infrastructure
• Utilizing Internet to communicate with the information appliances (gadgets like smart phones)
• Deploy applications that enables user only to interact with the service
• Deploy systems and applications that constantly use consumers as targeted advertisment consumers
• Seperate the consumers from the service as much as possible

This essentially made people Online Savvy, that established a normative climate of commodity fetishism in Internet. This further created repurcussions in real economy, as marketing campaigns persuades people to use internet for everything they would imagine of. As users, we welcome new technology and here we like to keep our devices in close proximity, while really we are bifurcated from the actual application that we depdent very much on, where the distance "a" keep on shrinking, "b" expanding ever. This contradictional deployment of applications that one hand ties itself up closely with the user through innovative User Internation design, while on the whole dependent upon the centralized services - becomes useless without communication - internet. This climate has obscured the actual huge cost of information logistics, that comes with this. It costs :

• Centralized - huge computing infrastructure

  1. More Electrical Power
  2. More Storage devices
  3. More maintenance

• User - Service depdency lockin

  1. Spend money for ISP, Telecom operators
  2. Compromise on informational privacy
  3. Bear the annoying popup ads.

• Neglection of critical analysis

  1. Who decides the utility has to be online dependent ?
  2. How it is decided to design an application as online service ?
  3. Alternative approaches - research and support

We could have so far atleast got the idea of how bifurcation of gadgets from the services have lead to a internet that is hard handled to fill it with such business models - ending up in homogeneity of structures that again precedents as "successful" business models and formulas. This might end up creeping internet more of a market place for business ventures than as a mutual sharing platform for the commons. The internet as communication infrastructure and with its web of network, has the potential to emerge as platform of social stage - which again is hindered and impeded by the rise of centralized social networking services like facebook, google, twitter...

People who is mostly ignorant about internt and web, has already been suffering from several compromises. We have already become so much dependent upon these centralized services, for a number of reasons:

• ease of usage and interaction (actually addictive)
• single entry point
• belief in 24x7 assured availability
• belief in service accountability
• ignorance of terms of services & its dynamic
• ignorance of compromises in informational privacy
• psychological training of ignoring advertisements
• once networked in a group, social desire resists to leave the centralized platform
• believing that alternative approaches are not easy to use without even trying it

The way this dependecy as illustrated in the above digram is pretty interesting. The business models that emerge with such mechanisms always ends up in expanding the degree of dependency for both the consumers and the business people itself. It is both advantageous for both of them at the same time detrimental to both of them beyond measurement. Both the consumers and service providers become highly dependent on each other for their profit motives. This dependency fuels the Data/Information Market Economy [DIME] that makes data as valuable as Oil. Since data here represents the data generated from the consumers, it is going to be continuously available for eternity as long as one can get a gadget acting as a data acquisition device. There is no surprise our measures of economy really shifted to Purchasing Power Parity [PPP].

All present day Inforamtion Appliances - like smart phones, smart watches, smart inner wears, smart x, smart y, etc.. have in one or other way have persuaded us to become dependent on some centralized massive services that is reliable. We want to believe that it is reliable because the infrastructure is huge and complex. When one is persuaded to use an application, then it comes easier mostly in internet to spread the word and thus companies offer their products and services with free of money - which reduces the users impedance to try it. There are no failure of products here. People criticize and the product will always be made if sufficient number of consumers wants it. One way or the other, we depend on it, we become addictive and then we make others depend on it and drag them to become addicts. It becomes addiction, when we cannot able to live without the gadget or the service.

This illustration shows how the present business models help perpetuate the dependency which ultimately ends much profitable for them. It is remarkable to interpret how this mechanism works atleast in theory. Since the models mostly works in digital and informational realm, it will most likely work as it would work in a idealized situation. The Users "U", when come to know about an application, then would provide the data back to the service, and spread the information to the social network group. Some of the group members, might able to try it and become users of the application again, in turn will supply the data back to the service and would recommend the application to other social network group with they are part of. This information diffusion repeatedly reinforces the market transaction of data and more popularization of product, without necessitating any financial complexities that might have demanded huge marketing campaign.

As Subscription becomes richer and richer with information diffusion, the importance of Sales of IA becomes accelerated in market. Since advertisement have become targeted with the gadgets, and information spreads through the centralized social networks which the business is in control of, people are actually playing with their shoes, their ball, their stick, in their field, with their rules. It always ends profitable to them. The only profit we would enjoy is mental satisfaction, group addiction while we spending for ISP cost, private Information, Data required for computation.

In conventional governance, there are institutions which are centralized but are funded by the public where the institution is funded by the people through the governance structure (via legislature and bureaucracy). When the institution is answerable to the people, the channels of communication are laid by protocols and rules which actually does not fit todays expctation and often feel so dumb, even when there are proper reasons behind it. Here the infrastructures are governed by the state. Usually public funding happens through state funding and by taxes imposed on people, right ?

With commons, the approach is more symbiotic, where the owner ship is not based on funding alone, but through cooperative and participatory actions like contribution, design, implementation, documentaiton & management in a collaborative way. This provides a common platform where nobody can own anything in particular apart from their part of their contribution. Thus the interdependency to implement something for practical usage demands collaboration, where peer produced ideas, products are brought together and collaboratively connected to setup a ecosystem, through which the economy emerges. However, this requires large social density to get started and the communities usually struggles until the participation reaches a inflection point. Most of the cultures seems to have used this approach as a reliable sustainable model. Economic ecosystems derived based on such cultures seems to self sustain than the current centralized models.

Do we own the data we generated ? Why do we give it away by spending money from our pockets ? Why do we always depend on someservice that we hope to compute on our data ? Why are we not collaborating among ourselves - atlease in computing communities to construct platforms ? Why is not there an economic incentive in our society when we come up with such alternative platforms ? Why people want to own stuff of others ?

If platforms are owned by centralized services which we access, then data processed by such platforms do become theirs by deault ? What good of a privacy policy when mechanisms of implementation does not actually support the moral behind the policy ?

Yes, with more data and information compiled about a individual, the more and better the service can become. But how the data is collected ?, with what mechanism ? and why so ? : are real questions that we must dare to ask ourselves in an economy and society where digital information is becoming a non-optional variable. As soon as one realizes that bifurcation of user, application; dependency perpetuation decides the business climate in internet it will be clear to see how people are really spending their financial potential, that acutally supports such digital economy in first place. The whole narrative is always about how to make people spend whatever they are trying to save. The above illustration shows how the business systems run themselves by deploying mere non-democratic mechanisms and tactics, for lack of practicing and support of any alternative strategies.

This is a dependency where one falls prey to another, but both falls prey for common construct. This is a lockin situation which both suffers within the perpetual dependency loop. Both cannot leave the other as their sustenance becomes dependent on each others presence 24 x 7 x 365. It is both ignorance potential and intellectual potential that plays synthetically to construct this lockin perpetual. It is usually the people who suffers from it actually dissent it and take courageous action. Moreover, the loop makes every function a creep function. The original definition no longer holds in this realm.