If I recall correctly, the entire point of Urbit's design philosophy was to demo the neo-cameralist ideology that Curtis Yarvin came up with. While the poster above is taking flack, I'd argue that, at this point, there's no way to split the ideology behind Yarvin, and the design of Urbit.
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/
I find the network and addressing model to be the worst designed and least interesting part of Urbit. That's the part that reflects Yarvin's political ideology, but I also think neoreaction is political flat Eartherism. Pretty much all of neoreaction boils down to refusing to account for survivorship bias. The average old thing looks better than the average new thing because crappy old things were forgotten.
The interesting parts are the functional programming approach used, which is somewhat novel or at least novel in its execution.
Another reply compared it to DNS, which is valid, but DNS does not have artificial limitations like Urbit does. DNS is also in many ways a bad design, not because it's inefficient but precisely because it encourages a feudal model that artificially constrains what the Internet could do. DNS was maybe the only viable model back when the largest machines online came with a whopping few megabytes of RAM, but some kind of distributed replication approach could be done today.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
It's not that those adults aren't worthy of first-class citizenship or digital freedom, it's that they wouldn't know what to do with it, or how to steward/safeguard it properly.
Based on my username, it's easy to figure out where I stand with regards to independent digital ownership of content. But even I have to admit that the process of being self-hosted for anything at all brings esoteric advantages at best, is very hard work to set up and keep running for a non-technical person, and is prone to takeover by a motivated adversary unless one is constantly vigilant.
It's far better to have a person in their lives who would manage their digital independence for them, assuming they are trustworthy and would do a good job at it. We already know the phenomenon of the "resident geek of the family", or their paid equivalent. Why not have a "resident digital independence keeper of the family/small community"? Surely that's already better than a mega-keeper like Facebook, who is unaccountable, not worthy of trust, and not with the user's interests in mind?
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.
Yup - I think that all matches what I'm saying. It's a fundamental philosophical tenet of Urbit that there are fewer than four billion people in this world who are deserving of a "proper identity that can't be canceled." Urbit specifically exists to promote having an independent digital identity instead of being subservient to Facebook, Twitter, etc., but not everyone in the world is worthy of having that independent digital identity in Urbit's eyes, and never will be.
To be clear, I'm not primarily arguing whether Urbit's view is right or wrong - it's probably clear that I mostly think Urbit's view is wrong, but the primary argument I'm making is that Urbit encodes this particular view into its technical implementation. I'm definitely not arguing, for instance, that 8-year-olds deserve the same rights as 30-year-olds - but I am arguing that it's a legitimate position to say they do, and that human society may, with good reason, come to that conclusion in the future. But Urbit has closed the door on that question. Sure, we live in a world right now where not all people have the same rights, and in particular children do not. But in a world where Urbit succeeds, there's no point even debating the question, because not all people technically can have the same rights.
Nobody is truly independent, and has never been. It may seem offensive to the Western notions of liberty, but the evidence is clear and Urbit is merely acknowledging the reality of the situation.
- The average people are dependent on the whims of the voting majority (democracy), or the whims of their leader (monarchy/totalitarianism)
- In addition, the average person chooses to do or avoid doing certain things, to maintain social conformity and avoid ostracism.
- The upper classes and elites are dependent on the whims of those above them in the power structure of the country
- The ruling class depends on the loyalty of those below them, so their conduct and decisions must be naturally shaped by those who they depend on to stay in power (see CGP Grey's "The Rules for Rulers", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)
- On an international level, this applies correspondingly. Weaker countries are at the mercy of their superiors, co-equal countries must not go too far in violating norms lest they get called out on it by peers, superpowers are dependent on their fellow superpowers not punishing them and on their client nations not to rebel.
I do agree that environments like Urbit should make it easy and cheap to become independent, and free to change your "landlord", but that's a mere implementation detail.
There's nothing baked in stopping moons from being freed from their planets other than code for that hasn't been written yet. Indeed its the general consensus among the community that creating more addresses by liberating moons would be what is done if the ~4 billion limit were ever reached.
There's ordinary mathematical reasons for the 4 billion limit - it makes the address space 32 bits. I've never met anybody working on Urbit that believes the notion you're putting forth.
OK - could the folks working on Urbit update that page or indicate that it doesn't reflect the current project's plans/beliefs, then? A "Common objections to Urbit" page that says "We would and easily could add more than four billion planet-like entities if the need came" would be far more convincing to objectors than "Actually, there aren't four billion people in the world deserving of our project's goals."
(I realize the document is from 2016 and written by someone no longer associated with the project, so maybe a disclaimer at the top linking to an entirely new version of the document would work, or something.)
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.
