I like that this article actually takes a nuanced approach and describes the pros on both sides. Most writing on this I see doesn't.

I believe there is an inevitable tension between centralization and decentralization. The former gives you:

- Usability. Look at fifty product pages on Amazon and you can easily scan each one since they all have the same layout and user experience. You don't have to hunt through fifty different web designs trying to find the price. You don't have to figure out if this page includes the shipping in the price while this one doesn't. Consistency is one of the keys to usability, and centralization gives you this.

- Economies of scale. A mom and pop store likely can't afford to roll their own crypto, fraud prevention, 24/7 support, etc. But when a single organization moves enough product, these kinds of things enter the realm of affordability.

- Predictability. Consumers can accurately predict how their experience is going to go. Fewer unpleasant surprises because they are likely dealing with the same branch of one giant organization every time. Walk into a McDonald's anywhere on Earth and you mostly know what you're going to get. That can be a real relief when you just want a safe experience.

But you lose:

- Innovation. If changing the layout of a design affects a hundred million pages and a billion users, it takes a hell of a lot of work to get everyone on board to ship it. It's much harder to just throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

- Resilience. A centralized organization is basically a monoculture, and suffers the same risks as biological monocultures. A single vulnerability or bug can take down the entire system because every part of the system is identical, including having the same weaknesses. When you have a lot of diversity and redundancy in the system, much like genetic diversity, the system is more able to respond to a surprising condition. There may be some winners and losers, but the whole system won't lose, and then can learn and adapt from the winners that remain.

- Novelty. When it's all the same, the time you spend interacting with the system becomes less personally enriching. No one writes an entry in their diary about the 523th burger they had from McDonald's. The stories people remember about their lives -- especially when interacting with businesses -- are almost always unique experiences with small enterprises. The family-owned hole in the wall restaurant, the tiny labor-of-love tabletop game store, the three-partner law firm that helped them navigate a crisis.

The important part is that each of these pairs of points are diametrically opposed. Gaining one sacrifices the other, so there is no perfect solution. Just trade-offs. Which means what we probably need is a meta-diversity -- a range of businesses at all scales. Accept that some big businesses are good. Sometimes you just want to complete a transaction or eat a damn burger. But also support a thriving set of small and medium-sized businesses for when you want something more lively.

One thing I really worry about the US is that government and incentives today clearly push towards a mono-scale where almost all successful business are big. I see few forces to combat the economies of scale and the power that large corporations wield, so we're heading towards a world where there are only giant mega-corps.