4 ms·

Why, specifically?

x86ARMsRace 6y ago
There's a lot to be said for separating the art from the artist (Heidegger always comes to mind). That being said, if the art is an expression of the ideas that are considered reprehensible, then it becomes much harder. With the example of Heidegger, his core works, including Being and Time, did not expound upon his Nazi sympathies. Had Being and Time instead be a work which deeply integrated Nazi ideology, the dialog around the work would be significantly different. Instead, a clean line can be drawn between Heidegger the Nazi, and Heidegger's work. With Yarvin on the other hand, his work actually expounds upon the ideology he created. There's no clear way to draw a line between Yarvin's ideology, and Yarvin's software, since they're so deeply linked.
- dundarious 6y ago
  I think GP wants to know why specifically Urbit and Yarvin's ideology are inseparable.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - x86ARMsRace 6y ago
    Michael1999 does a far better job summarizing this than I did. They've replied to the parent comment to this thread.
- d_theorist 6y ago
  Yes, sure. But what I am asking is specifically why are Urbit and Yarvin’s ideology impossible to separate?
  - x86ARMsRace 6y ago
    I misinterpreted what you were asking. That being said, Michael1999 does a much better job explaining that I can.
michael1999 6y ago
Yarvin was quite explicit about creatively embedding neo-reaction in the design. The most obvious is the hierarchical finite namespace -- you receive your identity from an authority, and the authorities (read as "land") are already assigned by the founders (read as landlords). The early writings were very explicit with language like "planets", "moons", etc. https://urbit.org/blog/the-urbit-address-space/ https://urbit.org/blog/the-urbit-address-space/
- Garlef 6y ago
  Are there ETH transaction fees of a node and do they trickle up in the id hirarchy?
  - joshuakelly 6y ago
    The address space is scarce (not dissimilarly to ipv4). Ethereum is used to map address space to owners and activities like transferring ownership. Urbit processes listen to an Ethereum gateway to learn about ownership changes and address lifecycle events ("breaches"), there aren't other "transactions"/fees involved in the protocol/implementation. This part of the project is called Azimuth - and can be used for other things: https://github.com/urbit/azimuth https://github.com/urbit/azimuth
- x86ARMsRace 6y ago
  Don't forget that in the initial source-code, Yarvin called the planets and moons, dukes and earls. To me, that's a pretty clear indicator that feudalism was on his mind at the time of developing the software.
- d_theorist 6y ago
  By this argument, it is also impossible to separate DNS from Yarvin’s ideology, since that has a practically identical hierarchical system.
  - sbilstein 6y ago
    Except...Yarvin designed Urbit and he did not design DNS.
geofft 6y ago
Here's a very concrete example: The address space in Urbit for self-controlled entities is 2^32, four billion. You can use Urbit if you don't have such an address, but you're a subsidiary of whoever is giving you access to the rest of the network and you're subject to censorship/control by them. You can't develop an independent identity that someone else can route traffic to. Now, it's true that the IPv4 internet also does this. But the IPv4 internet does this because they didn't expect to run into the limit (far fewer than 2^32 IPs were originally usable), and then they started working (halfheartedly, but whatever) on IPv6. Urbit has the limit because, as a philosophical position, they believe the limit is a good thing, because there should not be more than four billion people with full human rights. https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/ https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/ > A 32-bit planet is a tool, not a toy. Like a car, it's a device for a responsible and independent adult. There aren't 4 billion cars in the world, nor 4 billion independent adults. > If you aren't an independent adult, and you don't need or even shouldn't have unconditional digital freedom (no one's 8-year-old daughter needs unconditional digital freedom), a moon from someone else's planet is fine. (Even most of today's independent adults don't complain enough about being Facebook's moons.) This was written by Yarvin in 2016, when there were over 5 billion people over the age of 18 in the world, so at least one billion adults then were unworthy of first-class citizenship in Urbit's "digital city," and even more today - not to mention the 8-year-old daughters or 12-year-old daughters or 16-year-old daughters who need conditions on their digital freedom.
- dpc_pw 6y ago
  Each address ownership has to be tracked in the PKI database, so there's a big pressure to limit their number. Users don't have to use a self-owned addresses (planets). They can use moons which are delegated by the planets that issued them. The only limitation is that they are not fully independent (can't be resold, can be "canceled" by their planet) - just like an account on the website (just being run independently). > not to mention the 8-year-old daughters or 12-year-old daughters or 16-year-old daughters who need conditions on their digital freedom. Nothing is really stopping them from using a moon issued by their school, university, a random website offering such an account, other family member or a friend etc. Right now most of the world is using identities issues by Facebook, Twitter, Github etc. and not many people seems to mind. Also most people have their devices behind a NAT and also don't mind. That's exactly what using a moon would mean. Having a planet is for more serious usage: where one wants to guarantee independence: proper identity that can't be canceled and so on. Akin to owning a root DNS name for your personal server. So 4 billion is probably even way more than we are going to need, even if world population grows x10.

Why, specifically?

There's a lot to be said for separating the art from the artist (Heidegger always comes to mind). That being said, if the art is an expression of the ideas that are considered reprehensible, then it becomes much harder. With the example of Heidegger, his core works, including Being and Time, did not expound upon his Nazi sympathies. Had Being and Time instead be a work which deeply integrated Nazi ideology, the dialog around the work would be significantly different. Instead, a clean line can be drawn between Heidegger the Nazi, and Heidegger's work. With Yarvin on the other hand, his work actually expounds upon the ideology he created. There's no clear way to draw a line between Yarvin's ideology, and Yarvin's software, since they're so deeply linked.

dundarious 6y ago
I think GP wants to know why specifically Urbit and Yarvin's ideology are inseparable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- x86ARMsRace 6y ago
  Michael1999 does a far better job summarizing this than I did. They've replied to the parent comment to this thread.
d_theorist 6y ago
Yes, sure. But what I am asking is specifically why are Urbit and Yarvin’s ideology impossible to separate?
- x86ARMsRace 6y ago
  I misinterpreted what you were asking. That being said, Michael1999 does a much better job explaining that I can.

michael1999 6y ago

Yarvin was quite explicit about creatively embedding neo-reaction in the design. The most obvious is the hierarchical finite namespace -- you receive your identity from an authority, and the authorities (read as "land") are already assigned by the founders (read as landlords). The early writings were very explicit with language like "planets", "moons", etc. https://urbit.org/blog/the-urbit-address-space/ https://urbit.org/blog/the-urbit-address-space/

Garlef 6y ago
Are there ETH transaction fees of a node and do they trickle up in the id hirarchy?
- joshuakelly 6y ago
  The address space is scarce (not dissimilarly to ipv4). Ethereum is used to map address space to owners and activities like transferring ownership. Urbit processes listen to an Ethereum gateway to learn about ownership changes and address lifecycle events ("breaches"), there aren't other "transactions"/fees involved in the protocol/implementation. This part of the project is called Azimuth - and can be used for other things: https://github.com/urbit/azimuth https://github.com/urbit/azimuth
x86ARMsRace 6y ago
Don't forget that in the initial source-code, Yarvin called the planets and moons, dukes and earls. To me, that's a pretty clear indicator that feudalism was on his mind at the time of developing the software.
d_theorist 6y ago
By this argument, it is also impossible to separate DNS from Yarvin’s ideology, since that has a practically identical hierarchical system.
- sbilstein 6y ago
  Except...Yarvin designed Urbit and he did not design DNS.

geofft 6y ago

Here's a very concrete example: The address space in Urbit for self-controlled entities is 2^32, four billion. You can use Urbit if you don't have such an address, but you're a subsidiary of whoever is giving you access to the rest of the network and you're subject to censorship/control by them. You can't develop an independent identity that someone else can route traffic to. Now, it's true that the IPv4 internet also does this. But the IPv4 internet does this because they didn't expect to run into the limit (far fewer than 2^32 IPs were originally usable), and then they started working (halfheartedly, but whatever) on IPv6. Urbit has the limit because, as a philosophical position, they believe the limit is a good thing, because there should not be more than four billion people with full human rights. https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/ https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/ > A 32-bit planet is a tool, not a toy. Like a car, it's a device for a responsible and independent adult. There aren't 4 billion cars in the world, nor 4 billion independent adults. > If you aren't an independent adult, and you don't need or even shouldn't have unconditional digital freedom (no one's 8-year-old daughter needs unconditional digital freedom), a moon from someone else's planet is fine. (Even most of today's independent adults don't complain enough about being Facebook's moons.) This was written by Yarvin in 2016, when there were over 5 billion people over the age of 18 in the world, so at least one billion adults then were unworthy of first-class citizenship in Urbit's "digital city," and even more today - not to mention the 8-year-old daughters or 12-year-old daughters or 16-year-old daughters who need conditions on their digital freedom.

dpc_pw 6y ago
Each address ownership has to be tracked in the PKI database, so there's a big pressure to limit their number. Users don't have to use a self-owned addresses (planets). They can use moons which are delegated by the planets that issued them. The only limitation is that they are not fully independent (can't be resold, can be "canceled" by their planet) - just like an account on the website (just being run independently). > not to mention the 8-year-old daughters or 12-year-old daughters or 16-year-old daughters who need conditions on their digital freedom. Nothing is really stopping them from using a moon issued by their school, university, a random website offering such an account, other family member or a friend etc. Right now most of the world is using identities issues by Facebook, Twitter, Github etc. and not many people seems to mind. Also most people have their devices behind a NAT and also don't mind. That's exactly what using a moon would mean. Having a planet is for more serious usage: where one wants to guarantee independence: proper identity that can't be canceled and so on. Akin to owning a root DNS name for your personal server. So 4 billion is probably even way more than we are going to need, even if world population grows x10.