3 ms·

Feudalism the political system was bad for a whole host of reasons but this is a digital product, not a political system.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Sure, less harm, no doubt. Personally a system that gives you more control over other users purely due to when you joined seems unpleasant. As long as I’m not obligated to join I don’t really care, people are free to join if that’s their thing, but it sounds like not a lot of fun.
- creddit 6y ago
  So you're probably very against Reddit then? Reddit is inherently feudal in the same way: someone creates a subreddit over which they have near total power and loyal subjects are allowed to subscribe and post at the grace of the moderator lords.
  - mdszy 6y ago
    Except there's nothing stopping you from creating your own subreddit. There's no limit to them. In Urbit and Feudal systems, there's an idea of there being 1. A limited amount of land/resources 2. Some barrier to entry to getting them. In Urbit, there are a set, fixed number of "galaxies" (similar to subreddits in your example) that have all already been given out. Planets themselves cost money and there's an exchange for them (https://urbit.live/ https://urbit.live/) Reddit isn't a comparison at all. There are very many examples of communities whose users got sick of the moderators of their subreddits so they split off and created a new community.
    - creddit 6y ago
      There are fixed number of subreddits as the names are limited in length. So their revenue model is selling their product instead of selling ads and that's the bad part? Also, they're open source right so you can just run your own: https://github.com/urbit/urbit https://github.com/urbit/urbit Super evil stuff here.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        As long as it’s voluntary, I wouldn’t call it evil. I also have no idea why you’d want to participate in such a system, but you do you. The idea that limited string length makes reddit a feudal system is not a believable argument. I’d let that one go.
        creddit 6y ago
        > As long as it’s voluntary, I wouldn’t call it evil. I also have no idea why you’d want to participate in such a system, but you do you. Agreed 100%. The product, as best as I grok it, is totally garbage. But, that wasn't what was being said. What was being said was "Urbit is Nazi trash" and "Ubrit is feudal in nature and therefore bad". This kind of totalitarian thought policing is what is bad. The nature of Reddit is very much so Feudal in all the same senses as Urbit except that Urbit is much more explicitly limited in the number of polities that can be created. Subreddits are inherently feudal in the exact same way in that some set of lords (moderators) have control over what happens in their domain (subreddit). Who can become a lord (redditors with X amount of Karma) is limited and so are subreddits, thought the limit is so large it's not really a practical limit. The principals are the same, still, so arguing against Urbit for being bad because of this nature is mostly if not entirely wrong. The reality is these arguments are more about moralizing than the actuality of what is presented.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        You’re mixing your metaphors. Are lords people with karma, or are they moderators? Those are not the same groups, at all, with moderators typically having lower karma than top posters. Secondly Reddit has no real hierarchy that’s built in. It’s true that there are a limited amount of resources, but being early gives you no particular right the creation of any new resources, nor does it obligate any new joiner to participate in any particular subreddit. New subreddits created by new redditors regularly surpass old subreddits, undermining the concept of there being a heirarchy. Compare that to Urbit, where there is an explicit heirarchy. You’re either a galaxy, a star, or a planet. Each level is responsible for distributing the addresses below it, and has some level of control over them too, and if I’m reading this correctly has the right to collect taxes as well. This is explicitly Feudal, and in fact the original code names for these were “lords”, “dukes”, and “earls”. Finally, Yarvin considers himself an absolute monarchist, and thinks that American democracy should be scratched and replaced with a totalitarian government. It’s not surprising that he’d build a system filled with references to his preferred political structure.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
wmf 6y ago
Originally Urbit was explicitly pitched as a political system. More recently they don't talk about politics and I don't think anyone has worked out what the emergent politics of the Urbitverse would be.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Yarvin being pushed out probably has something to do with that.
strbean 6y ago
A digital product which, if it achieves the necessary adoption, would force anyone wishing to engage in modern society into a feudal system via network effects. This seems a little like arguing privacy isn't a real concern with FAANG because they just products and you should use something else.
- creddit 6y ago
  > A digital product which, if it achieves the necessary adoption, would force anyone wishing to engage in modern society into a feudal system via network effects. Most other digital products (outside of some decentralized services and even then maybe not. See, for example email) have this problem but even worse in that you end up in a dictatorship. Is a feudal system with free exit worse than a dictatorship? I’d say no so does anyone make this argument against all non-decentralized services? I don’t think so.
  - strbean 6y ago
    > you end up in a dictatorship I guess in the case of publicly traded companies, it's a kind of plutocracy? Control ultimately lies with the shareholders. This is a fair point though, but I think the rationale for this criticism already accepts that our current infrastructure is less than ideal. > so does anyone make this argument against all non-decentralized services? I don’t think so. I think the people interested in decentralized services do make that argument, which is why they are so critical of the hierarchy of Urbit. TBH I can see it from both sides. Dealing with bad actors and community management without any kind of hierarchy is very much an unsolved problem, probably unsolvable.
    - creddit 6y ago
      > I guess in the case of publicly traded companies, it's a kind of plutocracy? Control ultimately lies with the shareholders. With the voting shareholders of whom are in many cases dominated by super-voting shareholders of which the control often lies specifically in the hands of a founder type. Could go in many directions but plutocracy would be very common in this conception. Interestingly, with the rise of index investing this could even be thought of as arising to a democracy in some sense. > Dealing with bad actors and community management without any kind of hierarchy is very much an unsolved problem, probably unsolvable. Yes, highly agreed. There is likely a broad truth regarding the justness of organizational systems and I'm very interested in exploring possible proofs of such impossibility but have yet to have the time. There are interesting tangential concepts such as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...) in the realm of Social Choice theory.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Sure, less harm, no doubt. Personally a system that gives you more control over other users purely due to when you joined seems unpleasant. As long as I’m not obligated to join I don’t really care, people are free to join if that’s their thing, but it sounds like not a lot of fun.

creddit 6y ago
So you're probably very against Reddit then? Reddit is inherently feudal in the same way: someone creates a subreddit over which they have near total power and loyal subjects are allowed to subscribe and post at the grace of the moderator lords.
- mdszy 6y ago
  Except there's nothing stopping you from creating your own subreddit. There's no limit to them. In Urbit and Feudal systems, there's an idea of there being 1. A limited amount of land/resources 2. Some barrier to entry to getting them. In Urbit, there are a set, fixed number of "galaxies" (similar to subreddits in your example) that have all already been given out. Planets themselves cost money and there's an exchange for them (https://urbit.live/ https://urbit.live/) Reddit isn't a comparison at all. There are very many examples of communities whose users got sick of the moderators of their subreddits so they split off and created a new community.
  - creddit 6y ago
    There are fixed number of subreddits as the names are limited in length. So their revenue model is selling their product instead of selling ads and that's the bad part? Also, they're open source right so you can just run your own: https://github.com/urbit/urbit https://github.com/urbit/urbit Super evil stuff here.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      As long as it’s voluntary, I wouldn’t call it evil. I also have no idea why you’d want to participate in such a system, but you do you. The idea that limited string length makes reddit a feudal system is not a believable argument. I’d let that one go.
      - creddit 6y ago
        > As long as it’s voluntary, I wouldn’t call it evil. I also have no idea why you’d want to participate in such a system, but you do you. Agreed 100%. The product, as best as I grok it, is totally garbage. But, that wasn't what was being said. What was being said was "Urbit is Nazi trash" and "Ubrit is feudal in nature and therefore bad". This kind of totalitarian thought policing is what is bad. The nature of Reddit is very much so Feudal in all the same senses as Urbit except that Urbit is much more explicitly limited in the number of polities that can be created. Subreddits are inherently feudal in the exact same way in that some set of lords (moderators) have control over what happens in their domain (subreddit). Who can become a lord (redditors with X amount of Karma) is limited and so are subreddits, thought the limit is so large it's not really a practical limit. The principals are the same, still, so arguing against Urbit for being bad because of this nature is mostly if not entirely wrong. The reality is these arguments are more about moralizing than the actuality of what is presented.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        You’re mixing your metaphors. Are lords people with karma, or are they moderators? Those are not the same groups, at all, with moderators typically having lower karma than top posters. Secondly Reddit has no real hierarchy that’s built in. It’s true that there are a limited amount of resources, but being early gives you no particular right the creation of any new resources, nor does it obligate any new joiner to participate in any particular subreddit. New subreddits created by new redditors regularly surpass old subreddits, undermining the concept of there being a heirarchy. Compare that to Urbit, where there is an explicit heirarchy. You’re either a galaxy, a star, or a planet. Each level is responsible for distributing the addresses below it, and has some level of control over them too, and if I’m reading this correctly has the right to collect taxes as well. This is explicitly Feudal, and in fact the original code names for these were “lords”, “dukes”, and “earls”. Finally, Yarvin considers himself an absolute monarchist, and thinks that American democracy should be scratched and replaced with a totalitarian government. It’s not surprising that he’d build a system filled with references to his preferred political structure.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

wmf 6y ago

Originally Urbit was explicitly pitched as a political system. More recently they don't talk about politics and I don't think anyone has worked out what the emergent politics of the Urbitverse would be.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Yarvin being pushed out probably has something to do with that.

strbean 6y ago

A digital product which, if it achieves the necessary adoption, would force anyone wishing to engage in modern society into a feudal system via network effects. This seems a little like arguing privacy isn't a real concern with FAANG because they just products and you should use something else.

creddit 6y ago
> A digital product which, if it achieves the necessary adoption, would force anyone wishing to engage in modern society into a feudal system via network effects. Most other digital products (outside of some decentralized services and even then maybe not. See, for example email) have this problem but even worse in that you end up in a dictatorship. Is a feudal system with free exit worse than a dictatorship? I’d say no so does anyone make this argument against all non-decentralized services? I don’t think so.
- strbean 6y ago
  > you end up in a dictatorship I guess in the case of publicly traded companies, it's a kind of plutocracy? Control ultimately lies with the shareholders. This is a fair point though, but I think the rationale for this criticism already accepts that our current infrastructure is less than ideal. > so does anyone make this argument against all non-decentralized services? I don’t think so. I think the people interested in decentralized services do make that argument, which is why they are so critical of the hierarchy of Urbit. TBH I can see it from both sides. Dealing with bad actors and community management without any kind of hierarchy is very much an unsolved problem, probably unsolvable.
  - creddit 6y ago
    > I guess in the case of publicly traded companies, it's a kind of plutocracy? Control ultimately lies with the shareholders. With the voting shareholders of whom are in many cases dominated by super-voting shareholders of which the control often lies specifically in the hands of a founder type. Could go in many directions but plutocracy would be very common in this conception. Interestingly, with the rise of index investing this could even be thought of as arising to a democracy in some sense. > Dealing with bad actors and community management without any kind of hierarchy is very much an unsolved problem, probably unsolvable. Yes, highly agreed. There is likely a broad truth regarding the justness of organizational systems and I'm very interested in exploring possible proofs of such impossibility but have yet to have the time. There are interesting tangential concepts such as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...) in the realm of Social Choice theory.