Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

distributedweb.care

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#41

Post by [deleted] »

danielheath wrote: post #25
BlueTemplar wrote: post #20

> We might ask then, is Gab a platform for free speech, or is it a platform for hate speech? Who’s speech does Gab prioritize? It quickly becomes clear that the concept of “free speech” that Gab deploys is not quite the same as what others see it to mean. Gab's example seems to undermine the author's previous arguments, as Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. > O…

Except they frequently do, because you don't own the domain your mastodon identity is tied to. There's promising work in this area, but as yet none of the major implementations support separating 'hosting' from 'identity' the way (eg) email has for at least 20 years (probably longer, I wasn't there).

[deleted]

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#42

Post by curtainsforus »

danielheath wrote: post #25
BlueTemplar wrote: post #20

> We might ask then, is Gab a platform for free speech, or is it a platform for hate speech? Who’s speech does Gab prioritize? It quickly becomes clear that the concept of “free speech” that Gab deploys is not quite the same as what others see it to mean. Gab's example seems to undermine the author's previous arguments, as Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. > O…

Except they frequently do, because you don't own the domain your mastodon identity is tied to. There's promising work in this area, but as yet none of the major implementations support separating 'hosting' from 'identity' the way (eg) email has for at least 20 years (probably longer, I wasn't there).

How does email do this? If someone's email address is jim@website.com, isn't their identity tied to that domain name?

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#43

Post by mattkevan »

As far as I can tell, Urbit seems to be the first true cyberspace cult.

If Scientology was based in the trappings 1940s and 50s pulp sci-fi, Urbit is based in 21st century web culture, crypto/blockchain/libertarianism with an (un)healthy dose of feudalism and fascism thrown in.

All the signs of a cult are there, including arcane terminology and symbolism known only to an elite few, re-definition of commonly accepted terms (false==true etc), and a way to make the founders fabulously wealthy at the expense of newer initiates.

While some of the ideas are interesting, and empowering people to take back their digital lives is a noble goal, swapping digital serfdom from a company like Facebook to the bunch of lunatics behind Urbit doesn’t sound like a good trade.

Strip away the mysticism and deliberately obscurantist language, and I’m not sure there will be much remaining.

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#44

Post by jlokier »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #18

https://urbit.org/blog/a-founders-farewell/ > I do regret making 0 true and 1 false. For the love of God, why would anyone do that ?!?

Sounds crazy, but Unix does it and we don't bat an eyelid.

  [true.c]
  int main() { return 0; }

  [false.c]
  int main() { return 1; }

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#45

Post by BlueTemplar »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #29
BlueTemplar wrote: post #20

> We might ask then, is Gab a platform for free speech, or is it a platform for hate speech? Who’s speech does Gab prioritize? It quickly becomes clear that the concept of “free speech” that Gab deploys is not quite the same as what others see it to mean. Gab's example seems to undermine the author's previous arguments, as Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. > O…

> Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. Just because Gab and other Mastodon servers run the same technology, means little without federation between them. Signal and Whatsapp share key technology, but they are worlds apart regardless because they will never federate with one another.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to, while there's no way to do that between Signal and WhatsApp (at least without third party hacks) ?

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#46

Post by BlueTemplar »

stareatgoats wrote: post #33
BlueTemplar wrote: post #19

> Dog-whistles have been identified in some of his writing about Urbit and its design, including his leaning on Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt for questions around Urbit’s governance. Hmm, I might be mistaken, but Carl Schmitt seems to have made a valid critique of liberalism (just as Marx made a valid critique of capitalism). I've heard that he's being used as one of the essential thinkers in the legal teaching ? (Al…

> used as one of the essential thinkers in the legal teaching It is ironic that you link to an article that defines Schmitt as one of the main architects behind Nazi political theory. Then again, irony seems to be in vogue these days. The article admittedly goes on to find some "prescience" in Schmitts thinking but the purpose of the piece is above all to reveal and attach a brown aspect to the Brexit movement, nothi…

Yes, but you haven't answered my question. Is he or not considered as an essential thinker in the political/legal domains (in the sense that he is mandatory teaching in some professions)?

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#47

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #45
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. Just because Gab and other Mastodon servers run the same technology, means little without federation between them. Signal and Whatsapp share key technology, but they are worlds apart regardless because they will never federate with one another.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to, while there's no way to do that between Signal and WhatsApp (at least without third party hacks) ?

> I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to

Not in practice. Most "official" Mastodon sites will block you if you federate with instances of which the mainstream Mastodon community disapproves.

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#48

Post by BlueTemplar »

jlokier wrote: post #44
BlueTemplar wrote: post #18

https://urbit.org/blog/a-founders-farewell/ > I do regret making 0 true and 1 false. For the love of God, why would anyone do that ?!?

Sounds crazy, but Unix does it and we don't bat an eyelid. [true.c] int main() { return 0; } [false.c] int main() { return 1; }

Why?!

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#49

Post by BlueTemplar »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #47
BlueTemplar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to, while there's no way to do that between Signal and WhatsApp (at least without third party hacks) ?

> I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to Not in practice. Most "official" Mastodon sites will block you if you federate with instances of which the mainstream Mastodon community disapproves.

That's from the point of view of a server, a user, or both? (I guess a user can always have several accounts while still using the same client... for those clients that have not blacklisted Gab outright?)

Re: Who Owns the Stars: The Trouble with Urbit

#50

Post by detaro »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #48
jlokier wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds crazy, but Unix does it and we don't bat an eyelid. [true.c] int main() { return 0; } [false.c] int main() { return 1; }

Why?!

Because its originally error codes. 0 is "all went well", != 0 is an error code telling you why it failed. I'd guess which then got things added like "programA && programB" as "A went well, so do B and check if B goes well", which kinda gives the logic value true to 0.
Post reply on HN