Which brings us back to community. @urbit_ doesn't say much about this ontological class—other than to point out 2 things community is not:
-
-
Replying to @beadsland
Per
@urbit_: 1) "not every community is a topic…not every community should have a global name". 2) "community is…not a proximity cluster".1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beadsland
This leaves us in the dark as to how
@urbit_ would implement "small, informal, private communities - tribes and microtribes", but no matter.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beadsland
Just these 2 contrasts articulated by
@urbit_ helped me to work out why I've been so unsatisfied with how to model community in Project2017.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beadsland
To date, have been toying w/ communities as melding, in
@urbit_ terms, of topics and social graph. Granted, my topics aren't Urbit taxonomy.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beadsland
Moreover, Project2017's propinquity model—permutations over weighted social graph—is not
@urbit_'s "unstructured" proximity. Still a graph.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beadsland
What is "community" as orthogonally distinct from "topic"? How might social media model "tribes and microtribes"? Still pondering.
@urbit_1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beadsland
All in all,
@urbit_'s "Design of a digital republic, part 1, goals" has, in just that mutually orthogonality, provided much to work with.

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beadsland
@beadsland we're not great at 140 characters. But we can say this: there is a part ii, which will answer some of your questions.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @urbit
@beadsland in general, our goal is to provide the infrastructure where solving these problems is easy.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@beadsland solving them, at the application layer, is up to you. And us.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.