Hacker News Reader

Comment by notthemessiah | Hacker News Reader

Just wait until you read the political views of those who are developing of which Urbit is an instantiation. It's a political philosophy designed to appeal to the Silicon Valley elite who want to imagine themselves as kings:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement

Unqualified Reservations + Bitcoin = URBit

View on HN

Even Vox is less biased than Rational Wiki on the topic. Much better overview: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11434098/alt-right-explained

RationalWiki is biased trash that can't be trusted for anything.

Without actually reading what it says, you seem to be attacking the source rather than the content.

ironically, this is what the parent comment is doing - attacking the author and not the message

The software is heavily based on the author's political views - and allows the author to shape the network into whatever they want, being based on a system of "digital landlords" who have significant control over the users who work on their "land" - so it makes sense to look into said political views.

Yeah this whole thing is completely politically motivated.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. The system is explicitly designed such that the author can not ultimately shape the network into whatever he wants. The only real control stars and galaxies have over the rest of the userbase is that if you want to send a packet to someone who you don't already have a direct connection to, you need at least one star willing to route your traffic. The ownership of these pieces of network infrastructure is intentionally fragmented to prevent the kind of control you're talking about.

What you're describing sounds more like the web as it currently exists under the benevolent rule of King Verisign.

Nope, I said that Urbit is an explicit instantiation of his political views, which is a claim which I don't think Yarvin would contest.

He's stated this outright.

I readily admit I haven't even read the content in this case. I am just attacking the source: most of the times I have read their content on a subject that I am familiar with, it has been grossly misleading.

They definitely could be correct on this topic. I'm not familiar enough with it to say. However, I want to strongly encourage everybody to verify with other sources instead of lending this one even the credibility you'd give Wikipedia.

Yeah, but RationalWiki isn't an encyclopedia and doesn't pretend to have the claims of objectivity that Wikipedia has, opting for a Snarky Point of View policy instead of a Neutral POV, and is consequently critical of ideas it believes has a pseudo-scientific vibe. It was born in response to Conservapedia, and in its mission statement it intends to "explore fundamentalism and authoritarianism", whereas NRx has a neo-fascist appeal.

I picked that article because it seemed much more comprehensive than that of Wikipedia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com