very confused by this read... what am I missing?
So, we need a server to share a file. There's a lot of ways to do that. On one end of the spectrum, you can do it all yourself: buy a computer, put it in your basement, connect it to the internet, install a webserver, move the file to it, write an index.html file pointing to it, write a .htaccess file to limit who can access it, and send the credentials to your friends and family. On the other end of the spectrum, you can pay someone else to do all of it by signing up for Facebook. In between are a lot of options. Urbit is one of those options, and (obviously) the people who make it are trying to make it the best option for at least somebody. What I was trying to do in this drunken rant, er, crowd-sourced user story, was to lay out how it might be implemented, in order to take advantage of urbit's strengths.
That comment is not an explanation of what urbit is or what its strengths are; it was written towards people who already know, and so glosses over that. I have a near-done "what is urbit and what are its major pros and cons" blog post I should really finish up someday, but this ain't it...
(I'm not being snarky, but it seems you misunderstood me and I'm not sure how. Perhaps you thought I meant "share a file" like pirating movies or something? I just meant in the general sense that anything on a computer is a file, and sharing means letting someone else access it, which is sort of the core feature of any social media site.)
