To this day, I still don't understand why equality should be preferred to inequality.
In my view, networks are not so much new as a comparatively new and currently fashionable perspective. Even Kleithenes, Caesar, and the medieval popes could not do without networks.
The laws of power, hierarchy, and competitive fitness in the broadest sense are timeless.
Interestingly, movements such as the Arab Spring, ISIS, and QAnon, which were not successful through organization but through their structural contagiousness, did not prevail against classical states and their hierarchies.
At least they did not produce anything new that was viable. What does this tell us?
We can observe with interest whether something new will actually replace the old structures and systems. In the social and economic spheres, political boundaries have lost their significance, at least temporarily. Here, too, the saying “those who are declared dead live longer” still applies, and: the empire strikes back.
Thank you Michael. You have raised several crucial points that touchf the tension between networks and traditional power structures.
Regarding your first point on equality, my aim wasn't to argue for equality as an intrinsic moral good in all contexts, but rather to highlight how the structure of networks naturally produces deep inequality. This stands in stark contrast to the early utopian promises of a "flat," democratized digital world. The "tyranny" I describe is this mathematical tendency for popularity to compound, often irrespective of merit or quality.
I couldn't agree more with your second point, networks are indeed timeless. The Medici and Caesar are perfect examples. The "newness" isn't in the existence of networks, but in our scientific ability to finally map their topology and uncover the "laws" (like preferential attachment and fitness) that govern their behavior. For the first time, we've moved from simply observing this timeless dynamic to understanding its underlying physics.
Your final observation, that networked movements like the Arab Spring or ISIS ultimately failed to create viable states against established hierarchies, is fascinating, and I believe it perfectly illustrates Barabási's "Achilles' Heel" concept.
This is the core paradox:
Networks excel at disruption. Their decentralized, viral nature makes them incredibly robust and allows them to spread ideas and mobilize action with terrifying speed, bypassing traditional controls.
Hierarchies excel at stability. They are designed for command, resource allocation, and long-term defense.
The failure of those movements doesn't prove that networks are weak; it proves their specific properties. They are masters of contagion and swarming, but this same structure makes them poor at the kind of stable, day-to-day governance that hierarchies are built for.
So, when you say "the empire strikes back," you are exactly right. It's not a simple case of one model defeating the other. It's a continuous, messy co-evolution where the fluid power of networks constantly challenges the rigid power of hierarchies, and hierarchies in turn constantly work to absorb, regulate, or break them. The most interesting question, as you suggest, is what new hybrid structures will emerge from this permanent tension.
"This explains why the Internet, marketed as a peer-to-peer utopia, collapsed into six platforms (Google, Amazon, Facebook/META, Apple, X/Twitter and Microsoft)".
And underlying all of them - Cisco.
.
"But the subtext is plain: a world built on networks is not one that can be governed by Enlightenment values. Rationality, equality, deliberation, these are ideals of the linear age. The network obeys different laws."
Dark enlightenment.
.
"The danger isn’t simply that networks create inequality, but that they do so invisibly, and with a kind of inevitability that makes resistance seem quaint".
Death is irrelevant, resistance is futile.
.
"Power not only accumulates in hubs, it becomes invisible there, masked by the myth of openness".
Laissez Faire Capitalism! Winner take all!
.
"...modern insurgencies thrive not through strength but through structure".
Project 2025.
.
"Disinformation does not need to be persuasive. It only needs to be well-placed".
The Rupert Murdoch approach. Before him, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
.
"We know that resilience lies not in flattening structure but in designing systems that reward fitness, not popularity; that defend hubs without becoming hostage to them; that understand the inevitability of contagion, but refuse to feed it.
The tyranny of the link is real. But so is the possibility of adaptation, because once we understand what we are resisting, we begin to understand how to reshape it. The network does not care, but we can".
This is a great reminder of the imperative that we continue to Rise! Resist! ✊✊✊
The next nationwide rally is tomorrow, July 17. Be there or be square!
We need 3.5% of the population, or around 12,000,000 people to be present. So bring all your friends and families. Spread the word as far and wide as possible. Let's all get out there with a Howard Beale spirit and yell "We're as mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!".
To this day, I still don't understand why equality should be preferred to inequality.
In my view, networks are not so much new as a comparatively new and currently fashionable perspective. Even Kleithenes, Caesar, and the medieval popes could not do without networks.
The laws of power, hierarchy, and competitive fitness in the broadest sense are timeless.
Interestingly, movements such as the Arab Spring, ISIS, and QAnon, which were not successful through organization but through their structural contagiousness, did not prevail against classical states and their hierarchies.
At least they did not produce anything new that was viable. What does this tell us?
We can observe with interest whether something new will actually replace the old structures and systems. In the social and economic spheres, political boundaries have lost their significance, at least temporarily. Here, too, the saying “those who are declared dead live longer” still applies, and: the empire strikes back.
Thank you Michael. You have raised several crucial points that touchf the tension between networks and traditional power structures.
Regarding your first point on equality, my aim wasn't to argue for equality as an intrinsic moral good in all contexts, but rather to highlight how the structure of networks naturally produces deep inequality. This stands in stark contrast to the early utopian promises of a "flat," democratized digital world. The "tyranny" I describe is this mathematical tendency for popularity to compound, often irrespective of merit or quality.
I couldn't agree more with your second point, networks are indeed timeless. The Medici and Caesar are perfect examples. The "newness" isn't in the existence of networks, but in our scientific ability to finally map their topology and uncover the "laws" (like preferential attachment and fitness) that govern their behavior. For the first time, we've moved from simply observing this timeless dynamic to understanding its underlying physics.
Your final observation, that networked movements like the Arab Spring or ISIS ultimately failed to create viable states against established hierarchies, is fascinating, and I believe it perfectly illustrates Barabási's "Achilles' Heel" concept.
This is the core paradox:
Networks excel at disruption. Their decentralized, viral nature makes them incredibly robust and allows them to spread ideas and mobilize action with terrifying speed, bypassing traditional controls.
Hierarchies excel at stability. They are designed for command, resource allocation, and long-term defense.
The failure of those movements doesn't prove that networks are weak; it proves their specific properties. They are masters of contagion and swarming, but this same structure makes them poor at the kind of stable, day-to-day governance that hierarchies are built for.
So, when you say "the empire strikes back," you are exactly right. It's not a simple case of one model defeating the other. It's a continuous, messy co-evolution where the fluid power of networks constantly challenges the rigid power of hierarchies, and hierarchies in turn constantly work to absorb, regulate, or break them. The most interesting question, as you suggest, is what new hybrid structures will emerge from this permanent tension.
"This explains why the Internet, marketed as a peer-to-peer utopia, collapsed into six platforms (Google, Amazon, Facebook/META, Apple, X/Twitter and Microsoft)".
And underlying all of them - Cisco.
.
"But the subtext is plain: a world built on networks is not one that can be governed by Enlightenment values. Rationality, equality, deliberation, these are ideals of the linear age. The network obeys different laws."
Dark enlightenment.
.
"The danger isn’t simply that networks create inequality, but that they do so invisibly, and with a kind of inevitability that makes resistance seem quaint".
Death is irrelevant, resistance is futile.
.
"Power not only accumulates in hubs, it becomes invisible there, masked by the myth of openness".
Laissez Faire Capitalism! Winner take all!
.
"...modern insurgencies thrive not through strength but through structure".
Project 2025.
.
"Disinformation does not need to be persuasive. It only needs to be well-placed".
The Rupert Murdoch approach. Before him, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
.
"We know that resilience lies not in flattening structure but in designing systems that reward fitness, not popularity; that defend hubs without becoming hostage to them; that understand the inevitability of contagion, but refuse to feed it.
The tyranny of the link is real. But so is the possibility of adaptation, because once we understand what we are resisting, we begin to understand how to reshape it. The network does not care, but we can".
This is a great reminder of the imperative that we continue to Rise! Resist! ✊✊✊
The next nationwide rally is tomorrow, July 17. Be there or be square!
We need 3.5% of the population, or around 12,000,000 people to be present. So bring all your friends and families. Spread the word as far and wide as possible. Let's all get out there with a Howard Beale spirit and yell "We're as mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!".
https://substack.com/home/post/p-166495524
Nice way of connecting the dots :-)