Gopher is cool as a slice of history though.
Human vigilance is fallible. Protocol-level enforcement is necessary.
Can be achieved, but aren't. I'd love a consistent, stripped-down interface. The web doesn't give me this (it doesn't matter if it _could_).
To put it another way, for someone wanting to provide a service it's daft to choose Gopher 'because it's lightweight'. If you're providing the service, nobody can stop you providing a lightweight HTTP service and in fact doing so is mind numbingly easy. Just do it.
Or provide a URL link to an FTP server. Gopher was basically just a nicer to use menu based alternative to ftp, but visual browser ftp clients are pretty much that now anyway.
Having said all that, it is kind of cool that Gopher is still around. I was using it years before HTTP even existed. If Gopher is going to exits then yes, being lightweight is one of it's strengths, but pretending that this meaningfully distinguishes it from HTTP doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. I suspect a lot of it's attraction is techie cultural exclusivity and contrariness. Not that I have anything against those things whatsoever.
If it was important then the web would cater to it. It's simple economics.
We could create protocols for all the sub needs and desires that people may have but that would be restrictive.
The market is NOT a mechanism for delivering what is important.
No protocol will prevent people doing fun and clever things or produce content which you think is useless.
Gopher as a protocol can serve up any odd file format, HTML included, if one so wants.