Actually, I have. I understand that there is complex tension between fundamental human rights (like freedom of expression, freedom of association, & privacy) and realities of the intrusion & abridgment of these rights carried out by various state security agencies and corporations.

I agree that any project which claims "impossible to be subverted by centralized governments" is just saying "come and try to stop me, Federales". Moreover, I feel that such claims are extremely difficult to substantiate (and so not particularly credible) and for the most part made by groups I'm not really motivated to associate myself with.

Speaking in a very general sense (having kept up with the news & goings on related to technology, privacy, corporate activities, and state security activities for the past few decades); it's my opinion that this tension is not only not in an ethically defensible or sustainable state, it's not in the state that most of the people in the western capitalist nations believe & expect it is.

So I find assertions like: "Despite messages between ships being encrypted, the founders state that they've purposely designed the network to make it as easy as possible for governments to regulate and control. It's not entirely clear why this is supposed to be a good thing." to be similarly worthy of skepticism and disconcerting as the "impossible to be subverted by centralized governments" claims. My feeling is that this statement translates fairly directly into "all user data is available to any corporate entity or state security agency for any purpose" and that this includes purposes like backchannel monetization through data aggregation and industrial scale warrantless surveillance & data collection.

It's pretty obvious to me that you are pretty invested in this project and I've only spent a few hours perusing the various docs, repositories, and blogs. So I'm fairly hesitant to make any sweeping statements or claims of certainty. So, with those qualifications in mind, my conclusion after my perusal is that this architectural design choice is unlikely to be a reflection of some sort of pragmatic policy coming from a non-ideological position of social responsibility that's striving to minimize any intrusion & abridgment of rights while still allowing for the realistic needs of businesses and state security agencies.

Frankly spoken, I personally find a number of the abstract concepts and architectural design choices in Urbit project to be fascinating and compelling. I've spent far too much time dredging around the information that is currently publicly available... Time I honestly can't afford. So it's really disappointing to me to find that there is a pervasive toxicity which is deeply intertwined with the project. My conclusion is that this toxicity makes the project broadly unusable (seriously) & and possibly even unfixable.

Elsewhere in this thread I saw someone claim that there were big things coming in a few months. If this is accurate I look forward to it. Perhaps there will be changes and new developments which will demonstrate my current assessment inaccurate. Honestly, that would make me pretty happy... but from what I've seen so far, I suspect that's really, really unlikely.