Let's be selfish for a moment. Mandating decentralization of these services is probably a net good not only for society (and us, because we'll be the ones employed to do it) by way of distributing more wealth, opportunity and responsibilities to more people.
But it'll also be good from a technical standpoint. We're in desperate need of a wake-up call about the centralized and often legacy, government mandated insecurity of our information infrastructure.
Only by defining a new minimum degree of competence and security for a more distributed infrastructure can we pass through this keyhole without making continuous fraud and theft the new normal.
Bake it into the protocol that each connection is regularly confirming the other party's active and passive security measures, and that if one of these tests fails the connection is severed.
Any mandate about decentralization has to come from those with powers to enforce such a mandate (eg. government), and such entities benefit from all the centralization (eg. easy spying on citizens). So while such a mandate would be good for the society, who would enforce it?
But it'll also be good from a technical standpoint. We're in desperate need of a wake-up call about the centralized and often legacy, government mandated insecurity of our information infrastructure.
Only by defining a new minimum degree of competence and security for a more distributed infrastructure can we pass through this keyhole without making continuous fraud and theft the new normal.