I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better.
The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs and shitted up with 3p resources and images and code.
HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem upset with the modern web, and I am too - but it isn’t HTTP’s fault. It’s the sites you visit.
If you want to build new and smaller communities, I really think we should be building for browsers. Perhaps a website design manifesto is in order.
The limits of the medium and the creativity this enforces is why people like it. It caters a niche audience with a shared set of values. I get why people don't really care for it personally or on a technical level (myself included), but it always surprises me that it's hard for people to understand that others do.
> The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs and shitted up with 3p resources and images and code.
That is a microscopic subset of the modern web.
I don't use Gemini— though I am highly tempted —but I expect some of the attraction is that you can click on any link and pretty much guaranteed not to be socked in the face with a sign-up-for-my-newsletter or cookies-accept-all-yes-later or paragraph-ad-paragraph-ad-paragraph-ad or fiddling with NoScript to find the minimum amount of Javascript that will let you read some article that looks interesting. In Gemini, all that friction just goes away.
You can achieve that on HTTP with a browser extension or customized browser that checks for certain tags in the page, or disables certain features altogether. It isn’t the transport’s fault.
Problem: you are looking for a way to get rid of the annoying issues of the modern www. What is the solution that solves this with the least amount of work?
A) Develop a whole new transport protocol that does less than HTTP, develop client applications that use this protocol, convince a sufficient number of people to use this protocol, at least to the point where the majority of your activity happens there?
or
B) Install a handful of browser extensions that block ads and other nuisances on the modern www, and have it working right away?
Option “B” implies a cat and mouse game, which you can never win.
You can’t win a game designed and implemented by a mega corporation which is specially made to earn them money and protect their monopoly by being reactive and defending all the time. Instead you have to change the game and play with your own rules.
> Instead you have to change the game and play with your own rules.
That only works if you can convince the a substantial part of the participants to also play your game.
It's very easy to create an alternative internet where we can take away the power from incumbents. The hard part is creating all the activity that is taking place in the current one.
"Oh, but I can mirror the parts I want from the current internet into the new one!"
Not without playing into the same cat-and-mouse game.
Who says I'm trying to pull in everyone from the old internet to the new internet (Gemini)? If the people I care comes along, that's enough for me, and it's up to them.
For example, I switched to Mastodon, and follow people who I really want to follow are already there, plus I met a ton of interesting people, and was able to see real forms of people I followed before, so I have updated my views on them.
> "Oh, but I can mirror the parts I want from the current internet into the new one!"
Personally, I see Gemini or other protocols as equals to HTTP/S. For example, my blog is already text in most cases, has a full content RSS feed, so, also publishing a Gemini version is not mirroring what's on the web already, just adding another medium to my blog.
If I was pumping a 3rd party site I don't own from web to Gemini with a tool, then you'd be right, but publishing to Gemini is not different than having a RSS feed in my case.
> For example, I switched to Mastodon (...) and was able to see real forms of people I followed before, so I have updated my views on them.
Isn't that strong evidence that it is possible to have a "human-scale" web built on HTTP, and consequently that there is not much benefit in restricting yourself to a protocol that is designed to be limited?
> Personally, I see Gemini or other protocols as equals to HTTP/S
Except they are not. Maybe it can do enough of the things that you care about, but Gemini is (by design!) meant to do less than HTTP.
> publishing to Gemini is not different than having a RSS feed in my case.
Again: if all you want is to be able to publish something in a simple format, then why should we care about the transport protocol?
I get the whole "the medium is the message" idea, I really do. I get that people want a simpler web and I look forward to a time where we have applications developed at a more "human scale". But I really don't get why we would have to deliberately be stripping ourselves of so much power and potential. Talking about Gemini as the best solution to the problems of the modern web is like saying we should wear chastity belts to deal with teenage pregnancies.
Yes, but it's important to understand that limitations are moved to Mastodon "layer" in that case. It takes careful deliberation and restraint to keep something tidy. Mastodon does this by limiting its scope and organizational structure. We as humans like to abuse capabilities. So, to keep something tidy and prevent (or realistically slow down) rot, you need a limit somewhere. Putting that limit to humans vs. the protocol is a trade-off.
In that scenario W3C doesn't put any brakes, Mastodon puts brakes on development, organizational structure and scope, and Gemini puts brakes on the protocol. So, it's the most limited but hardest to abuse in a sense.
I probably worded my "I see them as equals" part of my comment wrong. I know Gemnini is a subset of HTTP, it's more Gopher than HTTP, and that's OK by me. Moreover, that leanness is something I prefer. See, the most used feature on my browser is Reader mode, and I amassed enormous amount of links in Pocket just because of the reading experience it offered.
> I really don't get why we would have to deliberately be stripping ourselves of so much power and potential.
Because power corrupts and gets abused. A friend of mine told me that they now use Kamal which makes deployment easy. How it's deployed? Build a container -> Push to registry -> pull the container on the remote system -> runs the container -> sets up and runs a proxy in front of that container to handle incoming connections.
That's for a simple web application...
I mean, I push files to a web server and restart its process. I'm not against power, I'm against corruption, and given human nature, restraint is something hard to practice, and that's if you want to learn and practice it.
> Talking about Gemini as the best solution to the problems of the modern web is like saying we should wear chastity belts to deal with teenage pregnancies.
I never said Gemini is the only and the best way forward. Again, for me It's another protocol, which offers a nice trade-off for some people sharing a particular set of values. It's like a parallel web like BBSes or public terminals (e.g.: SDF).
Being an absolutist benefits no one. We should learn, understand and improve. We can have multiple webs, and we shall be free to roam them in a way we like. I'd love to use my terminal to roam some text only web with my favorite monospace font and terminal theme, but I like to write comments here and think on the replies I get, too.
I find myself preferring a text-only, distraction-free web more and more, and naturally evolving my habits and personal infrastructure in that way, but I'm not carrying a flag, shouting about end-times and preaching stuff as savior. I'm not that person.
> it's important to understand that limitations are moved to Mastodon "layer" in that case.
Mastodon may be my preferred social network nowadays, but it's despite the prevalent philosophy from the development team. It's also arguably the reason that the Fediverse can not manage to grow to more than 1 million MAU.
>Because power corrupts and gets abused
The solution to this is not to get rid of power and keep everyone in the same small crab bucket. It's to make access to the powerful tools as universal and ubiquitous as possible.
> I push files to a web server and restart its process.
Your friend not being sensible enough to know when to use a tool vs when to keep it simple is not a problem of the tool. Also, talking about deployment methods seems so orthogonal to the discussion that I am not sure it makes sense to carry this conversation further.
> It's also arguably the reason that the Fediverse can not manage to grow to more than 1 million MAU.
Shall the number go up indefinitely? I don't believe so. Something can be attractive to a group of people and the number may float somewhere as people come and go. If the main aim is to make "the line go up", then the users become the product, and this is what I'm against in the first place.
> The solution to this is not to get rid of power and keep everyone in the same small crab bucket. It's to make access to the powerful tools as universal and ubiquitous as possible.
While stuffing people from a crab bucket is not the correct analogy for removing capabilities from the medium, I also believe giving people power to realize their dreams, but as you can see, this power corrupts (Meta, Google and Microsoft are great examples of things). Also, if we should give people all the power they need, then we arrive to the abolishing all law and regulation in all areas of the life.
What if someone have the dream of owning a bazooka and we enable them since it's a freedom, and they misfire it to a school bus?
What if we deregulate web space because people shall be free to do whatever they want in the internet, and somebody makes a fortune by selling targeted ads, and what if this ad platform is used to manipulate people to vote in a groomed way (Cambridge Analytica, everyone).
> Your friend not being sensible enough to know when to use a tool vs when to keep it simple is not a problem of the tool.
The tool is the result of exponentially increasing complexity of doing something simple. A perfect real-life example how modern web is bloating itself exponentially given its unlimited nature.
> Also, talking about deployment methods seems so orthogonal to the discussion that I am not sure it makes sense to carry this conversation further.
Please refer to above paragraph.
I agree that we look to the problem with a very different window, and you are not interested in a more minimal, saner or calmer space for distraction and abuse-free (or hard to abuse) environment. We're talking past each other. There's no need to continue this, since there's no desire to flex and widen the perspective.
> Also, if we should give people all the power they need, then we arrive to the abolishing all law and regulation in all areas of the life (...)
Non-sequitur.
> The tool is the result of exponentially increasing complexity of doing something simple.
The tool is for someone that needs to solve a problem at a different scale than what you and I need. You don't have to use it. No one is forcing you to adopt it. Their problems do not apply to you and no one is stripping you of the ability to solve your problem the way you see fit.
> there's no desire to flex and widen the perspective.
There is. I'm honestly trying to understand whether there is any real value there. I consider myself to be reasonably capable of arguing for two conflicting points at the same time, provided that the trade-off is consistent.
E.g, I may not agree with the direction that Bluesky has taken, but once you understand their original motivation (to have a "credible exit" strategy for an existing centralized network), then it makes sense. I think that Nostr's decision to tie identity to their cryptographic keys is absolutely moronic, but at least their approach is consistent with their priorities and ideas about decentralization. I think that most ActivityPub devs are creating "horseless carriages" (recreating federated versions of the centralized networks, when ActivityPub has the potential to be the foundation of the Semantic Social Web [0]), but at least this approach can be justified as a stepping stone to reach the larger objective...
I can not say the same about Gemini. It is being developed and is guided only by the things that it does not do. My best attempt of steel-manning it goes like "Gemini users consider themselves so powerless against the traps of Surveillance Capitalism, they think that the only way they can resist the siren song is by tying themselves to the boat mast. They see themselves as alcoholics who know they will relapse if they go out to the bar with their old friends, so they are building a place where drinks are not available."
But this is not the argument I hear. All I hear is a bunch of people talking about how awesome it is to sail the seas while tied to the boat mast.
That “alcoholic” metaphor? Seriously, what the hell. You don’t have to like Gemini, but reducing the people who use it to self-loathing addicts is ridiculous.
I use Gemini because I enjoy it. That’s it. It’s fun. It’s weird. It scratches an itch that the modern web doesn’t. Maybe that’s not your thing — fine. But why does someone’s personal enjoyment of a simpler protocol have to be pathologized?
Not everything needs to be justified by some grand ideological framework. Sometimes people just like stuff — and that’s enough. You claim to want to understand different perspectives, but this kind of framing makes it pretty clear you’ve already decided which ones are valid.
If you're really trying to steelman Gemini, maybe start by recognizing that people can engage with technology for all kinds of reasons — curiosity, aesthetics, nostalgia, minimalism, fun — and they don’t owe you a manifesto to justify it.
> people can engage with technology for all kinds of reasons — curiosity, aesthetics, nostalgia, minimalism, fun
Fine! The same thing could be said about retrocomputing enthusiasts. If that's only a hobby, go on and be merry. But don't go around acting like this hobby is an actual, practical solution to the problems of the modern web.
This whole thread started because I asked "you are looking for a way to get rid of the annoying issues of the modern www. What is the solution that solves this with the least amount of work?", and you and 3 other people are insisting that alternative A is the best one, but as the conversation went on you are resorting to "I don't owe you a manifesto to justify it".
Well, guess what? If you are willing to make the extraordinary claim that developing a whole protocol and applications to replace HTTP browsers is better than taking 5 minutes to install any decent browser, then yes, you kind do owe a reasonable explanation, and "I use it because I enjoy it" is. not. that.
You're framing this whole conversation as if there's a single, universally agreed-upon set of "problems with the modern web." You're also treating it as though the only valid solutions are the ones that address your version of those problems in the most efficient way possible.
But your original suggestion (installing a handful of browser extensions) doesn’t do much for someone whose interests go beyond tracking scripts, ads, or page weight. For someone who values different aesthetics, a slower pace of change, or the creative possibilities of working within tight constraints, then Gemini might feel like a very practical solution. It may not solve your problems, but it might solve theirs.
As I mentioned earlier, I still use the web. Gemini is not a replacement for me. But using it changes the way I experience the web. Gemini’s minimalism helps me notice and appreciate different aspects of modern web technologies. Likewise, the complexity and richness of the web always makes coming back to Gemini feel like a breath of fresh air. These perspectives can coexist without being contradictory. Not every tool needs to solve every problem. Sometimes I want to spend hours cooking something elaborate. Other times I just want to eat a banana.
Enjoyment is also a valid reason to use a tool. You can take something seriously and still appreciate it for what it is, not only for what it reacts against.
> You're framing this whole conversation as if there's a single, universally agreed-upon set of "problems with the modern web."
No, I'm framing this as "go ask 1000 different people to make a list of the top 10 issues they have with the web, and we will be able to solve 99.995% of them without ditching the web browser and start using a Gemini client to access documents instead".
All the problems you are describing are tractable with a web browser. Disable javascript, disable external stylesheets, run all the websites you want to read through wallabag and then just browse with a preset userstyle. Use lynx for all I care. That's all there is to it. Any of these approaches will get you the same type of experience you'd be getting from a Gemini client - with the difference that we won't need to know or care about it.
You might keep looking for justification for experimenting with other things. You might find joy in using them. It's all good, but completely orthogonal to the point. At the end of the day I'm just saying we do not need to switch to a different transport protocol in order to experience a saner web, and y'all are acting like just I'm calling your kid ugly.
You're still trying to invalidate my experience because it doesn’t align with your criteria for what's “necessary.” But I'm not trying to solve your problems. I'm solving mine, in a way that works for me. Your browser ideas wouldn't solve anything for me.
You seem to keep asking for some airtight, utilitarian justification, but not everything people build or use needs to pass through that filter. Some things exist because they offer a different perspective, and that difference can be meaningful even if it doesn't optimize for mainstream efficiency or convenience.
No one's asking you to switch protocols. Most Gemini users don't "switch" protocols, they still use the web alongside Gemini. No one's asking you to even keep replying to any of this. Just leave the thread and forget that Gemini ever existed for all I care. But insisting that the only valid solutions are the ones you’ve pre-approved is a great way to miss the value in approaches that don’t look like yours. And that's exactly what you keep doing.
Seriously, you're the one who's been out of line here: dismissive, condescending, and acting like curiosity itself needs to justify its existence to you. It doesn’t. If you don't like Gemini, all you have to do is look away.
> The tool is for someone that needs to solve a problem at a different scale than what you and I need. You don't have to use it. No one is forcing you to adopt it. Their problems do not apply to you and no one is stripping you of the ability to solve your problem the way you see fit.
False analogy. First, I know what scaling means, and I yell at the tool because it makes something more complicated than it should for any scale. For me, that tool is a bastion of bloat and unnecessary complexity, because I know how I can solve that exact problem with simpler processes at the scale that the tool targets.
> It is being developed and is guided only by the things that it does not do.
Non sequitur. Scope creep is a problem and having a good scope is half of building a good foundation. Exclusion is a more powerful tool for a good scope.
> "Gemini users consider themselves so powerless against the traps of Surveillance Capitalism, they think that the only way they can resist the siren song is by tying themselves to the boat mast. They see themselves as alcoholics who know they will relapse if they go out to the bar with their old friends, so they are building a place where drinks are not available."
False dichotomy.
> But this is not the argument I hear. All I hear is a bunch of people talking about how awesome it is to sail the seas while tied to the boat mast.
Confirmation bias. I told that it can provide an alternative universe for people to use low-distraction services. Another person told that it's just for fun for them. Nobody, I mean, nobody incl. me in this conversation told that it's a total replacement for HTTP/S or current web, but an alternative one for people who want alternatives.
People use BBSes, IRC, Matrix, RSS, etc. etc. Some of them work over HTTP, some are not. Some people prefer GUI tools for these, others use TUIs. All of these things augment or provide alternative universes or perspectives to what you want to keep dominant, "Modern Web".
If other people's choices and desires doesn't make sense to you, that's fine! However, painting them in the light you want, and telling that you're trying to understand is not.
It's pretty evident at that point is you only want to confirm and spread your view about something you don't get to like.
You don't have to use Gemini. No one is forcing you to adopt it. Their problems do not apply to you and no one is stripping you of the ability to solve your problem the way you see fit.
> I mean, nobody incl. me in this conversation told that it's a total replacement for HTTP/S or current web, but an alternative one for people who want alternatives.
Look at the start of the thread. My question was "you are looking for a way to get rid of the annoying issues of the modern www. What is the solution that solves this with the least amount of work?"
You (among others) came on to argue that not only doing all this investment on Gemini is a solution to this problem, but that it would be easier than using a better web browser.
> If other people's choices and desires doesn't make sense to you
Let me repeat: I was asking about what was the best way to solve a problem. And you wanted to sustain the argument that is less work to solve the problems of modern web by rebuilding in a way that is functionally crippled instead of simply adopting better web browsers. Which already exist.
I have no interest in judging your choices or what you value desires. If you want to get invested in this, I have nothing to say about it. But to try to turn this into a rational and effective course of action is an insult to people's intelligence.
I re-read the thread. Yes, developing a new transport with a well defined subset of the incumbent is a lower effort and better solution for me.
On the other hand, you're still adamantly insisting that everyone says that "Gemini will and shall replace HTTP, cope, duh", while in fact nobody is saying that. Instead, we (as in the people reply to you) say that "That's a neat little protocol which does what we want for some use cases, and we use and enjoy it for the said use cases". It's just an alternative, not a replacement. Seeing it as a replacement and being actively pushed as one is your confirmation bias, again.
Let me repeat: Gemini is the best way to solve that problem for me and some others. And I want and will sustain the argument that rebuilding is a better way for some problems, even though I'm pretty against it most of the time.
BTW, I already use non-chromium browsers for a fact. I never used chromium based browsers daily, and made them default, ever.
Again for the third and last time: I and other people replying to you didn't say Gemini is a replacement to HTTP. It's a neat little protocol which does some things well and used for some use cases, which happens to my main use cases for the thingy called web.
I have no qualms with your choices with views, but to try to portray your confirmation bias as what I and others say is stuffing words to others' mouth and is an insult to people's intelligence.
Not really. You could have tinyweb/oldweb sites identify themselves with a meta tag, and have a browser that only browses those. A opt-in, web-within-a-web. And turns off js, cookies, and images.
How do you stop users who aren't using the custom browser from accessing these 'tinyweb' HTTP sites? How do you prevent content scrapers and search indexers from accessing them? How do you suppress direct incorporation of 'mainstream' web content into 'tinyweb' content?
If your goal is precisely to create an parallel ecosystem that's "airgapped" from the mainstream web, and you're already going to have to develop custom clients, content formats, and server-side configuration to implement it on top of HTTP, and engage in lots of development work to imperfectly isolate the two ecosystems from each other, why wouldn't you just develop a parallel protocol and start with a clean slate?
> How do you prevent content scrapers and search indexers from accessing them?
How do you that with Gemini?
> If your goal is precisely to create an parallel ecosystem that's "airgapped" from the mainstream web
There is no way you can have an air gapped network with public access. The moment this "parallel ecosystem" showed any content that hinted at something lucrative, you will have people creating bridges between the two networks. Case in point: Google and USENET.
You keep it isolated from the ecosystem in which all of those things are taking place.
> The moment this "parallel ecosystem" showed any content that hinted at something lucrative, you will have people creating bridges between the two networks. Case in point: Google and USENET.
The whole point is to minimize the chance of that happening -- by limiting mainstream appeal, keeping it a niche, and avoiding Eternal September -- and to maximize the friction of bridging these two ecosystems. And so far, they've done a fairly good job of it, since Gemini has been expanding for six years without any indication of any of this starting to happen.
> There is no friction. It's trivial to write a program that can scrape a Gemini network.
It's not trivial at all. First, you have to want to do it, then you have to commit time and effort to doing it, then you have to maintain the solution you deploy specifically for Gemini in parallel to your web scraping architecture.
> If there is no one pulling data from Gemini servers yet, is not because it's difficult do it, but merely because it's still too small to be relevant.
Exactly. But it if was using web tech, all of the existing web scrapers could just be pointed at it with minimal effort. So using a separate, custom tech stack is what keeps the threshold of effort in front the threshold of desire.
And using a separate tech stack also creates intentional friction in terms of new user adoption, keeping it slow and maintaining the protocol's niche status. So this also helps keep that threshold of desire distant.
> First, you have to want to do it, then you have to commit time and effort to doing it
Implementing a Gemini to HTTP gateway seems like a perfect type of weekend project for someone that wants to play with a new programming language. With that, any barrier that you think you have is gone. Crawlers will get to you no matter what.
> So using a separate, custom tech stack is what keeps the threshold of effort in front the threshold of desire.
You know what else you could do? Just run your web server on a non-standard port.
Seriously, the more you try to rationalize this as anything else other than hobby, the less sense it makes. Just go with "it's a hobby and I enjoy spending my time with it", and I promise I will get out of your hair.
I don't know what to tell you at this point other than 'eppur si muove' -- you're giving me a bunch of theoretical reasons as to why you think it shouldn't work, and yet Gemini has been around for years now: it is maintaining itself as a distinct niche; it is not full of spam, ads, or slop; its content isn't readily accessible from the web or turning up in major web search engines despite the fact that there already are multiple web gateways around; and it generally does fulfill the intentions of the people using it.
You're treating this like a hypothetical discussion, but we're talking about something that already exists and functions.
And I don't think the "hobby" distinction you're making is particularly relevant, because the whole point of it is again to function as a community of amateurs -- and it's doing that quite effectively.
> because the whole point of it is again to function as a community of amateurs
Looks like I will have to point to the top of the thread again.
If your solution only works for a niche and it can only exist because it is so small that it is only interesting for a handful of people, then it is not an actual solution to the modern web!
That's not up to you to say. If it solves the issues I have with the modern web, it is an actual solution for me. And if changing my browser or installing extensions does nothing to solve the issues I have with the modern web, then that's not even on the table.
A solution that works for a niche... works for that niche. It's not like your solution of switching your browser or installing extensions universally solves anything. I absolutely despise the user experience of Firefox (which you suggested elsewhere) and ads aren't even close to the top of the list of my issues with the modern web.
Once again, what annoys you may or may not annoy me and what annoys me may or may not annoy you.
I'm talking about systemic issues in the modern web. Surveillance Capitalism. The control of mass communication platforms in the hands of a few corporations. The "attention economy" which makes creators more interested in collecting eyeballs than being rewarded by the quality of their work. Cultural homogenization driven by "the algorithm".
This is a lot bigger than "annoyances", and we are not going to solve any of this by acting like it all can be ignored and that all we need is to seek refuge in some ascetic application.
> Problem: you are looking for a way to get rid of the annoying issues of the modern www. What is the solution that solves this with the least amount of work?
Talk about shifting the goalposts! If the idea is to dismantle surveillance capitalism and the attention economy, sure, Gemini won't get us there. But neither will Firefox or browser extensions.
You're talking a major political, societal and cultural revolution here, and for that I don't think "least amount of work" is something to be aiming for.
We vastly underestimate what could be done with a powerful browser. Ad blockers are just the tip of the iceberg.
A powerful browser could work, e.g, as the basis for any type of local-first application and we would solve 98% of the issues of social media networks by letting the browser in control of the functionality. [0] We have web browsers that can let you browse through Tor and we would get rid of data tracking. We can have a "good guy's version" of HolaVPN where people could still cooperate in the data proxying, but without the data selling part. Brave gets a lot of shit because of their crypto stuff, but if more people were seriously looking at their platform as a privacy-preserving opt-in monetization platform, we would be a far better place that we are nowadays.
We can not do any of that with an user agent that can do nothing but fetch and present text documents. We need an actual application platform.
The issues you're talking about (surveillance capitalism, the attention economy) aren’t just browser problems. They're systemic societal and economic forces that go far beyond what a browser can fix. People accept surveillance and attention-hacking in every part of their lives: phones, smart TVs, credit cards, physical store visits. Thinking a better browser setup will meaningfully push back against that feels..... extremely optimistic at best. And that's me being quite charitable in my choice of words.
Also, I think it’s worth noting that you seem to be arguing against points no one here is actually making. Most people in this thread — myself included — aren’t claiming Gemini is a replacement for the entire web, or that it can dismantle surveillance capitalism. We’re just discussing a tool that works well for certain use cases.
As bayindirh pointed out in another reply to you:
> Again for the third and last time: I and other people replying to you didn't say Gemini is a replacement to HTTP. It's a neat little protocol which does some things well and used for some use cases, which happens to my main use cases for the thingy called web.
> I have no qualms with your choices with views, but to try to portray your confirmation bias as what I and others say is stuffing words to others' mouth and is an insult to people's intelligence.
A conversation only works when people respond to what’s actually being said — not to imagined arguments. I’d really appreciate it if you could take a step back and engage with the points people are making, rather than framing everyone as advocating for something they’re not.
The benefit with A is that it also removes higher order effects of the modern web. You may for example remove adverts by installing an ad blocker, but that wont change the incentives that advertising creates (eg. clickbait, engagement maximizing, etc.). With A you can guarantee that the content is not shaped by these incentives.
> With A you can guarantee that the content is not shaped by these incentives.
Without those incentives, you will quickly find out that there will not be much of an Internet out there.
If you don't believe me, check how many people are on YouTube talking about Open Source, when PeerTube exists and already can reach millions of people.
The internet and web existed for a long time before everything became infested with advertisement: Hobbyist bulletin boards, Wikipedia, the blogosphere, etc. These had enough content that a single person couldn't consume it all in a lifetime.
That internet was also only interesting and valuable to a fraction of the people who use it today.
And if you don't care about that and you are thinking from what you might get out of it: an internet where 99% of the content is crap but universal will end up with more valuable content than a neutered internet that can prevent the emergence of crap, but is tailored to appeal only to 1% of the people.
IOW, no one cares about reading all of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia would never reach the size it has if it was something only for a handful of individuals obsessed about their particular hobbies.
If the global Internet is a train in the 70s, Gemini is meant to be the non-smoking car at the very tail end. Those who cannot tolerate smoking (malicious practices surrounding user attention and agency), then they are free to make their way there and sit with other non-smokers. You won't have as good a conversation as in the smoking cars, but if the smoke really, truly bothers you, it's a space where different cultural rules apply by design.
You may think that way, but to me a more apt analogy is that global Internet are the regular trains of today and Gemini wants to be a bizarre version of the quiet wagons where people can only talk if they don't use the letter "e".
A movie theater where 99% of the movies are crap but universal is less interesting to me than a well curated cinematheque.
What I'm wondering is why do you feel the need to dismiss people's niche interests like this? You've even been rude about it in other answers, calling it "masturbatory".
Not everything has to be for everyone. Not everything has to be for you.
> Without those incentives, you will quickly find out that there will not be much of an Internet out there.
Well, there is plenty of interesting content on Gemini. If you're OK with having 50% fewer needles in order to get rid of 99.999999% of the hay, then it's a win.
Considering "B" is becoming less possible, thanks to Google dropping Manifest 2, and going out of their way to enforce a lot more tracking, "A" looks like a lot less effort - you don't have to fight FAANG.
Chrome is not the only browser out there. Firefox is still a good browser. If you depend on Chromium: Brave is keeping Manifest v2 and their ad-blocking extensions work out of the box.
My point is that the choice of protocol (much like the browser) is not a relevant factor if your goal is to be able to participate in the www without dealing with the issues.
We can have all the upside of an http-based web, without dealing with the downsides. The converse is not true. A Gemini network is by design limited in functionality, which is a downside that can not be mitigated.
> My point is that the choice of protocol (much like the browser) is not a relevant factor if your goal is to be able to participate in the www without dealing with the issues.
Right, but that isn't the goal of Gemini. It's goal is to create a distinct ecosystem, not to participate in the existing one with marginally less annoyance.
There's no 'proposal' here -- this is a review of an active ecosystem that has already had its ideas implemented and iterated on for the past six years.
Having a different ecosystem is the exact intention of this project. If that's not for you, you're certainly not required to participate, but the world is a vast continuum of variation, and is full of niches and clines that are intentionally distant from the global mean. Complaining that non-mainstream stuff exists seems pretty nuts to me -- the world is full of 'distinct populations'.
> a vast continuum of variation, and is full of niches and clines that are intentionally distant from the global mean.
But they are all sharing the same world. It's all the same ecosystem.
My objection is not because I am against people trying to do something different. My objection is to this delusional idea that this work needs to be isolated from everyone else. It's sterile at best and elitist at worst.
If you want "an user agent that can act as a user's agent", you just need to use a better user agent. They exist. They work. You don't need a whole transport protocol to achieve that.
My objection is to the justifications people are using to walk this path. Even here, we have different people trying to argue completely different things regarding the isolationist nature. You say that it can't be isolated, Gormo says it's "designed to be airgapped".
Look, I've spent quite a significant amount of time exploring alternatives for a saner web. I've got on the microformats train. I know my way around the indieweb. I'm right now working on some stuff that I hope can make the fediverse easier to use and more accessible. I'm not saying to give up the fight. Quite the opposite: to me it seems that the Gemini crowd is just playing with their toy miniature soldiers and claiming that this is the best we can do. It seems immature and poorly-thought out.
It's worth remembering that people are drawn to projects like Gemini for a range of reasons. That's not a weakness, it's a feature. One person might use it as a minimalist publishing platform. Another might enjoy the simplicity or find it a helpful alternative to today's web. Others might engage with it as a space for experimentation. These aren't contradictory; they’re just different use cases reflecting different priorities.
Saying that "better user agents exist" may be true for some people’s needs, but not everyone shares the same definition of "better." You're welcome to recommend user agents you think are worth trying — many of us are curious and open-minded — but it’s not really about convincing everyone to see things your way. Preferences aren’t problems to be solved.
And honestly, for a lot of us, Gemini isn’t some war we're waging. It’s a community project, a space to build and share things that resonate with us. If it doesn’t click for you, that’s fine. But calling it "masturbatory" or "playing with miniature soldiers" doesn’t add anything meaningful to the conversation. It just makes it harder for others to engage in good faith — and that’s unfortunate, because thoughtful disagreement is welcome. Dismissiveness isn't.
In some ways, A is easier, but not in all ways. Each has its own difficulties.
These are not the only possibilities, though; a third possibility might be:
C) Make a simpler set of features which are compatible with some parts of WWW and implement that.
However, you can do two or all three things if you want to do; you are not limited to doing only one thing. I think all three of these (A, B, C) have their own benefits, so you don't need only one.
You are not solving the stated problem. You are just admitting that working on a new protocol is a masturbatory, "the journey is the reward" kind of exercise.
The answer is "A". Perhaps some people are avoiding saying this too explicitly because it might sound a bit elitist, but I'll put how I see it as frankly as possible for the sake of clarity.
Gemini is not trying to solve a technical problem with the web. Is trying to solve a cultural problem that arises from the web having become a mass medium, in which every site's focus gradually erodes under pressure to optimize to the lowest common denominator.
Creating a new protocol from the ground up, and requiring users to install a distinct client to access it, isn't just about keeping the software aligned with the project's goals, it's about creating a sufficient threshold of thought and effort for participation that limits the audience to people who are making a deliberate decision to participate. It's about avoiding Eternal September, not about creating a parallel mass-market competitor to the web.
It's not about blocking the annoying ads, popups, and trackers, just to access sites where the content itself is full of spam, scams, political arguments, LLM slop, and other assorted nonsense, and instead creating an ecosystem that's "air-gapped" away from all that stuff, filled with thoughtful content produced deliberately by individuals. It's about collecting needles together away from the hay.
HTTP is intermingled with a lot of the shitty SPAs, advertising and SEO of the web. You can make a simple text only site but the noise of the modern web is only ever a couple of clicks away. Gemini silos itself off. You know that a link you click will be an equally clean text-first site. To me that is the feature.
I’ve been exploring this problem for a while, and have been building something which I think might help solve it.
I’m currently building a browser-based static site generator that produces clean, simple code. But it does more than that.
Alongside the generated HTML, sites also publish their public configuration and source files, meaning they can be viewed in more than just a browser, for example in a CLI or accessibility device.
The client interface is also more than a CMS - you’ll be able to follow other sites, subscribing to updates, and build a network rather like a webring. The idea is to provide human-powered discovery and community tools. The reach may be less than if algorithmic, but it’s designed for genuine connection, not virality.
As the client is smart but sites are simple, sites can be hosted on anything, from the cheapest shared host up.
I’d be happy to talk further if that’s interesting in any way.
In terms of levels of current support, you would be hard-pressed to find anything better for accessibility than simple, well-formed HTML. It's better even than plain text.
HTTP is great but with AI crawling being all over the place maybe it is not a bad idea to publish in a safe / niche place if one is not obsessed on how much people will be reached.
I am saying this but I have no idea if AI crawlers have started to crawl gem capsules.
> I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better.
I'm not sure I understand that. HTTP is the fundamental protocol of the web. If your goal is to create an ecosystem that is deliberately set apart from the web, how would using the same underlying tech stack help rather than hinder you in doing that?
> HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem upset with the modern web, and I am too - but it isn’t HTTP’s fault. It’s the sites you visit.
And why are those sites so awful? Did they decide to become awful from the outset, or is it because they've gradually adapted to a userbase that has regressed to the mean due to the mass-market nature of the web?
The whole point of developing a new protocol is to create a non-negligible threshold of though and effort for participation, precisely so that it doesn't get popular quickly and end up subjected to Eternal September.
Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it.
Requiring a markdown content-type would probably even be enough.
Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it, so it seems more sane to be HTTP native.
> Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it.
But why would you bother with that, when your whole goal is to create an ecosystem that's separate from the web in the first place?
> Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it. Seems more sane to be HTTP native.
Podcasts are often rehosted on YouTube, blog content is often reposted to social media, etc. Making content viewable from the other medium without making it native to the other medium is a common practice, and wouldn't defeat the purpose of trying to build a distinct ecosystem on top of the same foundation that underlies the ecosystem you're trying to avoid.
> I actually don't know of any other way to get them.
You can't actually get podcasts per se at all from YouTube. YouTube rehosts podcasts as YouTube channels, and doesn't itself expose podcast feeds.
Lots of people subscribe to podcasts through Apple Podcasts, Spotify, a long tail of various aggregators, or just directly subscribing to podcast feeds in their favorite apps.
My argument is not to use the same stack - just the same transport. No need to reinvent the wheel. HTTP and HTML do not necessitate that you use javascript or images or even forms.
The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs and shitted up with 3p resources and images and code.
HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem upset with the modern web, and I am too - but it isn’t HTTP’s fault. It’s the sites you visit.
If you want to build new and smaller communities, I really think we should be building for browsers. Perhaps a website design manifesto is in order.