Gemini is Solutionism(xn--gckvb8fzb.com) |
Gemini is Solutionism(xn--gckvb8fzb.com) |
[1]: https://andregarzia.com/2022/01/gemini-is-a-little-gem.html
I entirely agree that there's no good reason not to use HTTP[s] as a transport for textual information, which is kinda what it's made to do anyway.. I'd argue against a gemini content-type, I'd get as far away from the association with gemini as possible.
text/feather is a better content-type, it makes it clear that it's text, with a feather-light structure imposed on it.. That structure should probably be very little more than support for line breaks and hyperlinks.
I use the telnet trick often as debug step number one.
I’ve done plenty of telnets using 1.0 without the need for the host header. Just depends on if the server is a dedicated server or running a bunch of hosts (and the default host isn’t the one you want).
The example shown returns a 400 for me without a Host header.
Also it's definitely not enough to set a HTTP header. Need to use a different schema so that the restraints on content can be expressed in the URL of a link.
A key feature of Gemini browsers is to visually distinguish between links to Gemini:// URLs and links to HTTP:// URLs.
- people are using web features in a way we don't like. They could do it in the way we like but that's unpopular.
- instead lets make it impossible to do things that we don't like in our system. But people have to voluntarily use our system. For some reason people will use gemini voluntarily even though they refused to voluntarily use the web in a way we approve of in the first place.
- Instead let's make it impossible to do things that we don't like in our system. People have to voluntarily use our system. By virtue of having their content in our system, our users are guaranteed a comfortable experience.
The idea isn't that consumers are using the web in a way that is disliked. The web is run by and for large corporations legally bound to do what is best for shareholders. The web allows those corporations to take advantage of consumers in ways that the average user doesn't understand and often wouldn't knowingly consent to, and in the process opens the door to entire classes of vulnerabilities that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Gemini may include a few unpopular assumptions and limitations, but a consumer never has to worry about any content on Gemini being vulnerable to script injections, malicious spyware, or site silently mining crypto on your hardware. Tracking is still technically possible, as mentioned in the OP article, but in a very limited sense and only really at the level of page requests.
Gemini may be an over correction, but it at least starts (or continues) the conversation of whether a limited feature set is the most effective way to fix so many of the problems on the web today.
I think that this premise is wrong. The modern web does not suck. FB is usable by my grandma (at 89 she posts semi-regularly!), but there's no way she could understand how to set up an IRC client, how to telnet into servers, or how to write markdown.
Of course, there's a lot of bad and a lot of baggage that comes with companies like Facebook and Google, but it's important to keep some perspective: there's also a lot of good. Gemini would literally make the web unusable for my grandma, and probably my mom, too.
Can you share more on this? I've heard they conducted large-scale studies of emotional state[1], but I never heard about a link to profit before.
I'd say the fact that your grandma has to use FB instead of publish on the Web itself is exactly why it sucks. What most people are using isn't really the Web, but apps that happen to (ab)use the Web. Many of which don't even use the Web for the app, but just redirect you to a mobile app instead.
Now I don't think Gemini is actually fixing any of this, but I do feel that the Web today is fundamentally broken and the lack of self-publishing is disheartening, though understandable given that the Web makes it far from easy.
A lot of usable things suck.
Browsers are a natural monopoly. The reason is scale. Modern browsers are just too fucking big. Bob from Seattle isn't taking down Google with his neato "classic browsing experience". Nobody uses Bob's browser.
So how do you rid the web of its surveillance scripts, telemetry-filled browsers, bad UX decisions, unnecessary bloat, manipulative algorithms and lowest-common-denominator pandering? Well, Gemini says you don't. This is where people get red in the face. How could you possibly give up the good fight!? Just visit websites that aren't trash! Well, sure. I do visit blogs that treat me well, but there's a reason most of the web is garbage. Because garbage makes money. Individual consumer decisions make up an aggregate of consumption behavior that shifts the market towards certain development patterns. "Surveillance capitalism" could also be called "you get unlimited entertainment for free, and in exchange I keep the receipts" capitalism. That's a pretty good deal for most people. And that's why the business model keeps getting copied. It's scalable, popular, practical, and yields the highest number of consumers of your product. It would literally be irrational for a business NOT to do this. When you block 30 trackers on someone's recipe page, you're taking a square peg and trying to force it into a round hole. That isn't a recipe page, but a tracking page that happens to have a recipe on it. Making it "work" is contrary to its intended purpose.
So Gemini basically asks the question "what if we made a protocol that is architecturally predisposed to being user-friendly?" Gemini is a thought experiment in making a tool that's for a particular thing, for a particular group of likeminded people. What if instead of accepting dependancy on a browser duopoly, the protocol allowed anyone to hack up a browser in an afternoon? What if the protocol was designed to make surveillance capitalism an impossible business model? What if instead of trying to turn the corporate web into FOSSweb and bringing everyone into web utopia, developers created their own web that caters to user-friendly experiences for the niche minority of people who actually care about all that high-minded moralizing?
So is Gemini useless? Maybe for you. But I found interesting blogs and I use the Lagrange client, which is very pretty. I enjoy reading peoples' thoughts on philosophy, economics, science, environmentalism, all kinds of things. And for the first time in decades, I feel like I'm actually surfing the web again, as I browse feed aggregators and click on random links, digging through post after post on all kinds of cool things. And it feels like a relaxing break from having to worry about what scripts may be on the sites I browse. I just click and go.
Will Gemini show me 4k videos of puppies being carried around in strollers at the park? No. Gemini will never fill that part of my browsing habits. But does it have to? Consumers have become so domesticated in their mindset that one tool has to do it all. Once the tool turns out to work against you, you find yourself choosing between living in modern society or becoming a hermit. There is value in letting a hammer just be a hammer, and not trying to tape a saw on top of it.
Connected to motherfuckingwebsite.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.0 200 OK(Almost nobody would vary the response based on the Accept header. Besides, if they did, you might as well just set an X-No-Ads-Please header and send HTML in both versions)
You create a set of conventions that “Gemini compatible” websites conform to. This will allow your site to work with small Gemini-only browsers. Those conventions mostly amount to sending markdown for URLs when the user agent sends “accept: application/x-Gemini-markdown” (or whatever the mime type would be). Web servers send the markdown to Gemini user agents while they send normal html to browsers that don’t send the Accept header.
To signify that the site is a “Gemini site” at the URL level you can create a convention that the url must end in “.gemini” e.g. https://foo.com/blog.gemini
> (Almost nobody would vary the response based on the Accept header. Besides, if they did, you might as well just set an X-No-Ads-Please header and send HTML in both versions)
I don’t see how sending a different file based on an accept header is any more technically unrealistic than creating an entirely new technology stack.
It’s barely complex. It’s a standard dispatch on the accept header, all major web servers handle this out of the box. Also it has the significant benefit of working with existing browsers. On what basis were you making that statement?
> Also it's definitely not enough to set a HTTP header. Need to use a different schema so that the restraints on content can be expressed in the URL of a link.
You can accomplish the same URL transparency by using a file extension convention. E.g. “https://foo.com/my log.gemini”
> You can accomplish the same URL transparency by using a file extension convention. E.g. “https://foo.com/my log.gemini”
The extension shouldn't be `.gemini` it should be `.this-is-not-malware-i-super-pinky-promise`
Just kidding. The problem is you can't enforce a mere "convention" against malicious actors.
The subset of http necessary to support Gemini-style requests is really not complex at all. I’ve written basic http servers in hours if not minutes.
> The extension shouldn't be `.gemini` it should be `.this-is-not-malware-i-super-pinky-promise`
If you are someone who uses what I’m calling “http-Gemini” because they are worried about malware then use the stripped down “http Gemini” browser. For the rest of the world who is already comfortable with potential malware in their links, there is no change. The control stays in the user’s hands.
What Gemini got right is that simplifying and limiting the publishing format prevents bloat.
The people whose content I most respect are writing into a blogger setup that hasn't changed for decades, or into Wordpress's editor that feels like it actively fights you when you want to write. They like making it look like they want it to, and they like having analytics or getting paid for their content with ads or subscriptions. And on the other hand, barring one notable exception I haven't found anybody in the gemini space whose content I found interesting in itself. (Of course, that's just personal opinion - you might find many more people in the gemini space interesting.) And the moment I realized that a significant portion of the content on the gemini space was about implementing a gemini reader, it hit me that it was pure solutionism. Gemini is a protocol for techies who want to bikeshed about tech!
(I could also go on about how the idea that stripping content of styles or """fluff""" is the only way for readers to get it on their own terms. I use stylus to override the font on every website I visit - it didn't require reinventing the wheel for that!)
> Gemini is a protocol for techies who want to bikeshed about tech!
I don't agree with this on the matter of fact -- the spec has not meaningfully changed in at least a year, no major companion specs have been added since "gemlog", and the mailing list is currently down. While I may have agreed with you in late 2020, The only thing being produced on Gemini now is "content", and there's more of it than ever!
GeoCities came along and things could be ugly, but it felt genuine.
Even just background choices or ugly gifs…
I miss the personal wonkiness and folks not afraid to make ugly sites.
The race to ultra minimalism feels as cold as a Facebook profile, maybe more.
I do miss these days too.
Gemini does not prevent you from having any of those things. It simply enforces a separation of those experiences from the text.
The reason this is a bad thing, is because you cannot use interactive maps and animations to create rich user experiences.
The reason this is a good thing, is because you cannot use interactive maps and animations to create "rich" user experiences.
I strongly disagree. By willingly limiting the markup, gemini actively tries to prevent you from doing these things. In contrast, what's wrong with the web is everything JavaScript and some early design issues with CSS, but HTML is good (although it could be simplified/improved).
xHTML more specifically is easy to parse and extensible so that different clients can implement more features. We need more HTML less JavaScript. In this sense, going the gopher route is a step backwards in my view, because it means for most of my practical needs (such as a simple user-submitted form) i need to stick with the web as we know it while i would be more than happy to take part and contribute in a privacy-friendly/minimalist subset of the web (as a standard i mean, i already do that on my websites).
The implication being that the web can be changed? I don't believe that, I believe the web is broken and it's only getting worse by the day. I'm not going to discourage you from trying though.
> If you don’t like how modern websites track their users and flood them with ads, then don’t do that on your website [..]
> If you don’t like JavaScript, don’t use it [..]
Sorry, these are not answers for me as a user. When I browse the gemini space, I'm guaranteed to not be flooded with ads, harmful javascript, etcetra. And I'm also guaranteed not to have to play whack-a-mole with ublock/umatrix trying to make the actual fucking content somehow load. That's where the value is! "In theory, someone could make a nice website. Some actually do" is nice but it does nothing for my browsing experience in general, because the next link is going to be crap again.
Given that the mainstream stack we all are dependent on has foundational problems as OP acknowledges, language like "solutionism at its worst" feels counter-productive. Surely anything Gemini does or doesn't isn't as damaging as status quo. So why not let a thousand flowers bloom? Criticism like this feels like the People's Front of Judea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BpfwazhUA)
It does, it makes sense. These standards led us to everything that has ruined the old web, it led us to corporate controlled Internet where few major websites aggregate 80% of the content. It led us to scroll-jacking, bot-driven, located behind firewalls and captchas websites where genuine users can't even log in or post anything. It is why we have to use browsers that are more complex than entire operating systems just to support everything that can be done over HTTP. It led us to monopolies on web browsing - how many pages of web standards you have to implement and comply with if you want to make your own browser, just to visit google dot com? And at any time and moment all your efforts can be interrupted by security researchers who would tell you that your browser is insecure and now you have to comply with hundreds of pages of security standards as well, all because of how much can be done over HTTP. You can't even host a simple website over just HTTP without somebody telling you that you have to use HTTPS, even if you don't need it, because why not? You'll have the green icon!
And because of such monopolies, most websites also turned into "shells" that try to ruin your experience as much as possible so you go and download their app where they have more control without being restricted by browsers. And this, in turn, led most people going off the general web and staying inside their apps.
Sure, you can make your app that throws away most of HTTP-based bloat, but then someone forks and makes it support some of the bloat because they like it that way, and then someone else adds a bit more, and we are back at it again. You can't just "go back" and strip everything from HTTP, entire thing has to be done in entirely different way where there is no possibility of repeating history, because there is no other road history of HTTP can walk by.
Which is why nothing of value is lost by ignoring it, IMO.
Gemini folks maintain Gemini for themselves using their own hardware and their own time, so I think they can do whatever they think its best for them.
If they want to strip HTTP and remove all cool features it has, it's their problem, not ours.
If they want to treat content as text only, again, it's their problem, not ours.
If they want to publish their content as Gemini only, it's their content, not ours.
If they want to bikeshedding about internet protocols, it's their time, not ours.
Now, about Gemini folks being elitists and intentionally excluding people with their protocol, take a minute to think about what tech companies are doing.
Tech companies and many other companies that rely heavily on tech are making our society dependent more and more on online services, selling all kind of products and services that need an internet connection to work, even for basic features.
In a world where half of population does not have internet connection, and geek folks feel excluded by a protocol just because they don't like it, how can we name what tech companies are doing, if it is not elitism and exclusion?
It doesn't get any more "exclusionary" than that.
There will come a point- and for some things we're already past it- where there is exactly one viable web browser, and it is controlled by a company that sells ads. This is why Gemini exists.
I think the real issue, and the OP touches on it, is the text/gemini format. There's a ton of content that would enrich Gemini (and that fits Gemini's mission) but that simply isn't usable in text/gemini. Specifically, I'm talking about inline-links (though that isn't the only issue).
I wrote a server in elixir, and tried to convert Wikiversity's Introduction to Programming (1) both manually and automatically. I found the output unusable and couldn't come up with a case where I'd ever prefer/recommend it.
(1) https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Programming
That's kind of what I've concluded too. I like the mission of gemini (and I believe the web is fundamentally broken and unrepairable), but I do feel like text/gemini flings way too far in the opposite direction. It's not a new pattern, I see this all the time: thing X is too complex and bloated and user-hostile, let's make a suckless thing Y. Y is minimalistic to a fault.
Making something that's too minimalistic or too complex is easy. Finding the right balance and making something that is small and simple yet still capable of covering wide use scenarios is an engineering challenge..
Since I agree with gemini's mission, I'm not going to complain too much about it. It's not exactly what I want, but if it encourages people to write content and deliver it in a form that is guaranteed not to have web's problems, I'm all for it, because I do stand to benefit from it.
If I click a link in a Gemini browser, I know for sure that it will not start loading and running a ton of resource-intensive scripts. I know that it will not start autoplaying audio or video. I know that it will display fine in plain text, every single time - so it works in my terminal, in Emacs, on my phone, etc. And I know it will be fast.
Yes, I can use NoScript, uBlock Origin with comprehensive lists, etc. and start to approach that level of simplicity... but every other link I click will likely be broken in weird and wonderful ways. In Gemini, they all work (provided the page still exists, of course). I think there's some value in that.
With a `text/gemini` content type over HTTP/1.1 you could just use cURL, wget or fancier stuff like w3m/lynx and get the exact same benefits but would not need to install yet another internet facing tool that may even get things wrong security wise (even with simple stuff a possibility).
And given that HTTP has content negotiation, how could you ever be assured that a given link goes to a text/gemini page?
I think Gemini lack of compatibility with the Web is its main feature, and I think people using Gemini want to create a separate new "community". The spirit is "we lost the web, it was taken over by corporate interests, let's accept it, leave it and create our new thing" (you can replace "corporate interests" by "normies" for some people I'm sure).
I think this is all fine, creating new communities/clubs/whatever when you are not happy with existing ones is good, maybe you'll be alone in it, maybe not, good for you.
I think the main problem I see here is that, if I understood properly, a Gemini link was shared on a web page. I don't think it is okay. You want to have your own private club, you got it. But please leave other clubs alone. It's perfectly okay that you don't want to communicate with me. But then don't.
Because escaping the annoyances of the "modern web" may require escaping from the "modern browser". The changes users want to "modern browsers" will never be made. The vendors of these programs do not answer to users. They answer to web developers and advertisers. These are large, complex, insecure programs usually controlled by organisations that seek to profit from online advertising. The advertising focus leads to complex web pages. Not the type of simpler pages that some users want. (NB. Not "most", but "some".) Gemini, because of its limitations, allows users to retrieve resources without the need for one of these "modern browser" programs. If a new Content-Type was added to HTTP, what is the likelihood that other parties outside the "modern web browser" cabal would write small, simple, alternative browsers, e.g., aimed only at this Content-Type. Look at the market share, i.e., available selection, of web browsers. It is not diverse.
Whereas, writing a Gemini client is dead simple. A Gemini browser cabal where users have only a few choices and they are each controlled by corporations is unlikely.
Asking web developers to "please make simpler web pages, thanks", when the "modern browser" allows for complex pages and integration of advertising is not a succesful course of action. Most of these web developers answer to advertisers or to employers who answer to advertisers. They are not going to ditch the user annoyances, they are going to seek profits. Gemini seems to address this problem by making advertising difficult. Without the "modern browser", the possibilities for advertising are limited.
Similarly, asking web users to "please use a text-only browser", e.g., Links, when so many web pages try to use "modern" browser features that enable complex web pages is probably not a successful strategy for many users either. As a long-time Links user, that strategy has worked for me, though.
The only complaint I have about Gemini is the absolute requirement for SNI. Not every IP addresss will necessarily be hosting multiple Gemini sites. Under the current protocol, even addresses hosting only a single site must require SNI. That makes no sense. It serves no purpose. It should be optional not mandatory.
English language keyboards are how you type Japanese.
Those keyboards you see with Katakana or Hiragana are rarely used in Japan, pretty much everyone uses romaji.
And it's easy to set up on Windows. I can toggle English and Japanese input with Windows Key + Space.
ナイス！
It's virtually impossible to set it up if you don't use a QWERTY layout. I have a horrible pile of hacks that more or less work for now, but are being removed in windows 11.
Even lack of styling with every page looking about the same can be considered a feature, everything looks familiar and we aren't inconvenienced by bad design decisions.
It does feel like escapism/subculture of sorts, and I do believe that retreat from the Web is one of the underlying motivations, but (maintaining a relatively minimalist Markdown-backed site myself) I agree that there are no real technical reasons for it to exist (even Markdown support is something that is relatively easy to agree upon across browsers).
What I do like about it is the Lagrange browser, and the extremely legible reading experience—-I consume most of my content via RSS feeds and Reader Mode on websites I visit frequently, and I like the uniformity and predictability of the layout, as well as the lack of ads and distractions.
I’d be happy enough if Lagrange’s unfettered visual style became a sort of “forced Reader mode” in standard browsers…
Let's keep it simple: HTTP 1.1, HTML, CSS 1 (maybe), _no_ JS.
IMO Gemini is not a solution but a toy. Nothing wrong with that, its fun to have toy protocols and communities, but it isn't useful to many.
Many of Gemini's adherents can be described broadly as left-anarchists or left-libertarians. Their assessment of the problem is that the web has been captured by large, centralized corporations. Their alternative is human-scale technology and human-scale communities: a protocol so brain-dead simple that anyone with a bit of technical know-how can write or run a client or server, and anyone can write gemtext. It's a philosophy that users should have a close relationship with and understanding of the tools and platforms they use, which should be built and run for free (one can think of many real-world organizations analogous to this). Could you build these tools and communities on HTTP? Sure (and there is a wide overlap between "small web" communities on HTTP and gemini), but it's a more radical separation to build an entirely separate "place" for them.
> Bottom line is, if you agree that the modern web has become an awful place, let’s work on changing that for everyone, instead of abandoning it like a bunch of billionaires trying to escape to a different place
This is a bizarre analogy, because, unlike the other alternatives that the author presents (e.g. blockchain), there is no money or corporate interest in Gemini. But I do agree that Gemini is, to some degree, escapism, it does not confront the institutional problems of the web. But those problems won't be solved by any protocol -- not Gemini, not Dat, IPFS, not some future imagined perfect protocol, and certainly not blockchain. They are solved by politics: challenging the institutions that control the web and its infrastructure and the policies that they make. Gemini is, to me, at least a nice reprieve from the web as it is, and a demonstration of what it could be, unsullied by the drive for profit and domination that fuels it today.
Unfortunately it looks somewhat nontrivial to use and unnecessarily different from everything else without offering any true new features. All it has is the content and culture.
It's also yet another privacy at all costs project. Which is fine, but I feel like that's all anyone does anymore and they've forgotten all other innovations.
Still, the long form Web1 content and old forums were wonderful. Is there anything I should be looking at? What's the coolest Gemini content? How do gemini users like to communicate?
https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/warmedal.se/~antenna/
It's an aggregator of sorts, but with a bit of a twist.
Clients, for the terminal I recommend Amfora
https://github.com/makeworld-the-better-one/amfora
and Lagrange is a great GUI client
https://github.com/skyjake/lagrange
Communication, there's an informal way of addressing other gemlogs using 'RE: <title>'. It's fraught with issues, as I have discussed. There's IRC (#gemini on tilde.chat) and Usenet (comp.infosystems.gemini) now that the mailing list (itself a potent source of drama) has gone to the great bitbucket in the sky.
https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/gerikson.com/gemlog/gemini-sux...
Oops, what happened? Now that was short lived.. EDIT: apparently hardware failure
Since there are apparently a few users here: What server would you recommend to get started? Any small tutorials on setting up a gemini site? Any links to gemini sites (maybe your own) you want to share?
I haven't tried them out, but usually, awesome-* lists are good starting points.
As you can read in the Gemini FAQ, the reason that Gemini is not compatible with HTTP is that it should be possible to know that when you browse Gemini content, you will stay in gemini content. If Gemini were compatible with HTTP, then when you make a Gemini website, you know that many people who use it probably are using HTTP browsers, so it will be easier to mix Gemini with HTTP links which means that Gemini users will be more exposed to the type of content that they were trying to avoid by using Gemini.
If Gemini instead is incompatible with HTTP, it will be harder for site owners to put a HTTP link on their Gemini site because they don't know how the user's client will handle that.
Maybe the best solution could have been something that makes it easy to get in but not as easy to get out. I mean something like it could be possible to have a HTTP link to a Gemini site that would work in all browsers, but that Gemini site could not have a HTTP link. I just don't know how you would make that.
HTML inside markdown is anyway legal as per the standard, so anyone could use <table> for anything complicated anyway.
Such an implementation would also lead to users having more control and say in how the web pages look (similar to Gemini), by letting you read most content across most websites in fonts, styles, and colors of your choosing. This aids a lot in accessibility as well.
> I'm guaranteed to not be flooded with ads, ...
I guarantee this will only be true until it becomes popular enough to be a juicy target for the more - uhm - "business-oriented" people, it's not because of a restricted feature set.
Creating a technology which is intentionally uninteresting to business is an interesting angle of course which I can get behind ;)
I wish best of luck for ads to be serve and viewed at scale in there
Sure, but there are plenty of users that are out there with different needs than you. Plenty of people out there don't deal with text well. One of the best parts of the web has been the ability to share images and simulations. Gemini space has no 3Blue1Brown and no Khan Academy. You can't watch a master cabinetmaker hand carve some dovetails. Gemini can't display textual math because the only thing text/gemini supports is UTF-8 text. There was talk in the early days of having screen readers and such but it's mostly gone unfollowed up on. There were a lot of debates about other accessibility things but the minimalist faction ended up winning over the pro-accessibility faction.
Gemini is only useful as a user if you're a software hacker who doesn't like math or images or videos or other media and have no accessibility needs. And it's borne out on Gemini space itself, as that is the core demographic of Gemini. To me Gemini feels more like a clique than an open space, where the text-loving cool-kids hang out. As far as internet projects that I feel are more inclusive (which isn't a high bar compared to Gemini), I find Usenet, Yggdrasil, and Secure Scuttlebutt better. There's a lot less waxing and waning about good and evil (and how the Geminauts are good, of course) on those places too.
That's another discussion altogether. I agree Gemini is too limited, and I said as much in another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30069716
The fact that Gemini is not what I want does not invalidate the opinion that the web is broken, and Gemini provides answers for that in its niche. Likewise, other people wanting other things doesn't invalidate anything. We don't exactly have to choose one technology and solve all the world's problems with it. I'm ok with Gemini being what it is and I'm not pretending it is (nor should it be) everything for everyone. It's not much for me, but it's something.
That seems more like an artifact of it not being popular than a feature of the protocol. If companies wanted to, they could just run native advertisement on Gemini just like they do elsewhere, just disguise the ad as regular news article and call it a day. Nothing stops them from putting banners on top of every page either or how about showing you an ad text before you are allowed to visit the actual content? You could even have a server-side wait time before you are allowed to move on from the ad.
Gemini just feels like rolling back the Web to an earlier stage without actually adding anything meaningful. If it ever got popular, it would devolve just the same as the Web already did, as it's nothing more than the same thing with a different paint job.
My personal take on this is that the core of everything wrong with the Web is the request–response nature of the protocol, as that allows to do a lot of crooked stuff on the server side, either intentionally (e.g. monitoring user activity, showing different content to different people) or unintentionally (e.g. causing broken links by servers going down). If the client gets plain-text or HTML really doesn't make a difference.
Another big issue is that publishing on the Web is far too complicated and expensive, which is why nobody is doing it anymore and instead relies on Facebook, Youtube and Co.
Something like IPFS feels like a much more valuable attempt as fixing the Web, as IPFS gets away from the request-response and turns the Web into a persistent data structure, that can't just be meddled with at the server side. It also makes publish substantially easier, as hosting is no longer tied to any single company, multiple people can host the same content and you don't have to pay and maintain a DNS record.
The part that is still missing with IPFS is a better replacement HTML. Stuff like pagination, image galleries, shopping carts, comments, etc. really need to become part of HTML, instead of stuff people hack together with Javascript or server side scripts. And how come we don't have an <advertising> tag yet?
Efforts in simplification should really happen on the users side, not in the protocol.
The problem that people have with ads on the web is cross-site tracking and targeted ads. Gemini protocol does indeed prevent that by restricting one request to just one response. Non targeted ads wouldn't be a privacy concern, or even an attractive option.
Yes - the slice you visit can be changed for you by using the right user-agent (as suggested in TFA).
> When I browse the gemini space, I'm guaranteed to not be flooded with ads, harmful javascript, etcetra
Why can't gemini space be defined by "Content-type: text/gemini" sites linking to each other and/or a limited functionality browser that doesn't render content you don't like?
It's hard to call it the web if your user agent doesn't support the web technologies.
> Why can't gemini space be defined by "Content-type: text/gemini" sites linking to each other and/or a limited functionality browser that doesn't render content you don't like?
As far as I care, it could be.
The end result would be more or less the same: people would have this new format and a new bunch of applications that aren't compatible with the web. I'm not really interested in bikeshedding minor implementation details of that level.
That said, I think Gemini is intentionally designed to be ignored; an enclave or ghetto on the Internet, depending which connotations the speaker wants to have. Its success or failure will depend on its ability to have a self-sustaining community, which is interesting mainly in that discovering Gemini requires finding it via the web at the moment. I suppose there might be a Gemini-IRC connection, too; we will see if Gemini has IRC's longevity.
Here's an example of the connotations the term "solutionism" has: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/09/evgeny-mo.... It does not apply here, to put it mildly.
Unfortunately, that something else will also be minimalistic, separatist and elitist, just less so than Gemini. It will probably use a strict subset of Markdown and be primarily text-focused and won't support scripting. But rather than "a thousand flowers" blooming we'll just have Gemini and "Gemini lite," because that would satisfy the needs of 99% of the potential audience for such things.
Because resources are not infinite. Gemini sucks the air out of the room.
> Sometimes an adage is trotted out that goes roughly like this: Welp, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing!¶ And sometimes that's true. It's at least widely understood to be true, I think.¶ What I don't see mentioned, ever, is that sometimes "it's better than nothing" is really, really not true. In some cases, something is _worse_ than nothing.
<https://www.colbyrussell.com/2019/02/15/what-happened-in-jan...>
> I think the real tragedy of Gemini is that although its existence is a reaction to a genuine problem[... i]t's another instance of a bad solution to a problem making that problem worse. This happens when bad solutions capture the attention of people concerned with and/or affected by the problem, and then they divert resources away[...] instead of allowing those resources to be better put to good use
Historians avoid counterfactual arguments because they lead nowhere. Perhaps the timeline without Gemini is worse. Perhaps it's better. Not possible to say. Best to just live in the moment.
What projects would you prefer them to work on?
That's... probably a poor figure of speech to use as encouragement.
That’s the entire contention, though. I don’t think the standards really had anything to do with it.
The only thing that even comes close is maybe DNS, since it ties web pages to specific organizations, so a page only continues to exist as long as an unbroken chain of custody keeps it there. But Gemini doesn’t even address that (ask IPFS and FreeNet how it’s going).
But mostly, browser vendors created the standards. And most of the current browser vendors became dominant browser vendors by using some other business to gain an edge in the market: Google used their ad business, sure, but before them it was Microsoft using their operating system to push their browser on people, and they largely just ignored the standards.
> entire thing has to be done in entirely different way where there is no possibility of repeating history
But does Gemini actually do that? What stops your client from making ad-hoc extensions to gemtext?
No amount of writing, or lack thereof, can stop evil Gemini browser vendors from just ignoring what the text says. You need something else to make sure that power players don’t just ignore the rules you set out.
Worse yet, it is precisely those standards that enable google dot com to discriminate and block your new browser. For your security, you know..
So very low effort as it already exists :)
IOW a web that's safe and user-controlled, again. Just a damn hypertext document browser that doesn't also bundle a spying suite and hand control of it to anyone by default. We should have realized when people started putting up troll pages that broke your computer simply by using JavaScript's normal capabilities, that we needed to seriously rethink including a scripting language with all kinds of ability to act against the user just because they followed a link, as part of the Web. We didn't do that, though, and instead we got gestures at everything.
I'm not sure Gemini's the right solution, but that would be a nice thing to have, which we do not have now.
It's still possible if you use uBlock, or enable JS only when you need it. You don't have to throw the baby (gemtext missing inline links!) out with the bathwater.
Not every single thing has to include every single person on earth. If people want to use Gemini good for them.
> elitism (n.) the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society.
where does this idea come from? why can't people make their own spaces in their own corners of the Internet without being considered "elitist?"
is HN "elitist"? 4chan? Usenet? ZeroNet?
Yes; very much so, particularly those first two which are widely known for it.
I mean, ignore away, but I don't think its fair to say that the sole reason for Gemini is exclusion of people.
This is the key point. It is like the idea that you don't need the fastest person to escape from a chasing bear, you only need to be faster than the slowest person.
A user on the conventional web, is the slowest person here. And thus the success of Gemini browser is dependent on the existence of the slower person, that is, a large number of users available for exploitation, on the regular web, so that the business will leave the Gemini users (and the likes) alone.
HN actually implements this idea by remaining minimal. But even this place got overrun by shills these days, which means such piecemeal strategies will not work. So it makes perfect sense to do all the way and use a different protocol altogether..
I think the protocol being designed around ensuring it's difficult for sites to exploit visitors is a core goal that gets lost in the blinding document minimalism that's hits you when first encountering Gemini, OP didn't seem to get it.
And yet most of these users don't use lynx...
> Only complaint I have about Gemini is the absolute requirement for SNI. Not every IP addresss will necessarily be hosting multiple Gemini sites. Under the current protocol, even addresses hosting only a single site must require SNI. That makes no sense.
If you're only hosting 1 site, isn't the privacy leak negligible because there is 1:1 mapping from ip to domain so an attacker caneasily determine it.
Besides, in a system playing fast and loose with pki, its more like a do not disturb sign than an actual lock.
What if it is a company serving advertisers, not an "attacker".
Not sure why this myth of effortless, reliable translation from IP to domain name in "real-time" exists amongst HN commenters. Show us who is doing this for the purposes of advertising and how it is worth the effort and can be relied on. Even if this were possible, it still does not justify sending a plaintext hostname over the wire when it is not necessary to retrieve a page.^2 Not every site requires SNI (yet "modern" browsers send it anyway).
Tell us how to reliably^1 translate any IP to a domainname at the same speed as one can sniff SNI, and with no extra effort. Assume the use of TLS1.3 so one cannot simply examine a plaintext certificate sent over the wire for a CN or SAN. Then show us where and how this is routinely being done by various companies selling online ads or ad services.
1. PTR will not suffice
2. This is like arguing that because it is theoretically possible for a third party examining traffic to discover some private information through a process that requires referencing additional sources, the user should therefore broadcast the information with every request, despite that it serves no purpose for the user to do so.
Sniffing SNI is common practice.^3 Performing effortless 1:1 mapping from IP address to domain name for the entire www in real-time, for advertising purposes, is not. As long as browsers send SNI with every request, there is no need to do that, even if it were possible.
3. Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) will eventually prevent it. See https://defo.ie
There is no harm in Gemini making SNI optional instead of mandatory.
It's similar to how, here in HN comments, you cannot embed a giant 300MB javascript advertisement monstrosity. Or even just an image.
If people could do that, then the space would be destroyed by malicious actors.
What if we eliminate HN and do the communication P2P? Where author hosts own content. How can I as author still guarantee you as reader that I won't do that?
One answer is to publish over Gemini.
I had never heard about Gemini before this thread. So after skimming, I read the Gemini FAQ, then went back and re-read the article.
The author completely missed the point and began a technical discussion.
Kind of similar to that dev you work with that gets psyched about a solution, and doesn't stop to ask "do we need to solve this problem?"
That means if I want to use Gemini I would have to add a whole other browser to my computer and switch between the two while browsing which is super annoying. At that point I just won't bother.
What is the end game here? Do they want all websites to switch to Gemini? Do they expect people to use two browsers? Are they saying that anything that can't be built on Gemini should be a Native App?
If you're not going to install Lagrange, I'm doubtful that you're going to install an extension either. This isn't about you personally, it's a statistical judgment about the market segment you're signalling yourself to belong to. People reluctant to install native software are also unlikely to install extensions.
Having a separate app provides some additional protection compared to an extension that can look over your shoulder at everything you browse. Lagrange runs in a separate process entirely, and it can only snoop on the Gemini websites I visit.
Re endgame, see 1.6 at https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi
Me, I go to Gemini (and Mastodon, and the tildeverse, and plan.cat, and twtxt, and, and..) precisely because it has no hope in hell of adoption. If someone's posting there they're intrinsically motivated[1]. That's the stuff I want to look at. When I'm in small pools like these I'm less legible[2] to marketers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic
[2] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...
I used to consider myself a left-anarchist, though now I might better be considered a post-left anarchist nowadays. More radical, perhaps in PLA style, is to do away with this silly idea of "human scale"; we have computers, so let's do some computing, and get something interactive like the Web, but from an axiomatic design that is implementable in your lifespan, and ensures privacy and security properties from such axioms.
https://applied-langua.ge/posts/terminal-boredom.html is a longer form writeup on this line of thought.
I don't think the analogy is super bizarre. The Left-anarchist milieu, building its own separate spaces, unschooling their kids, living in their Californian suburb and going to Burning Man has always been more thoroughly bourgeois than even the worst cutthroat entrepreneur.
I can imagine a 40 year old retired tech guy living off his stocks raising his own chickens, self-declared left-libertarian socialist going "Oh, you use HTTP? That's nice. Corporate? I'm beyond it. I blog on Gemini". At least big corporate makes stuff ordinary people can actually use.
I would not describe myself as a left anarchist, but I think that this is an extremely uncharitable analysis of a much more diverse and serious group of people that don't really have anything to do with the things you listed.
That's interesting. People that I know (not personally, but the names I recognize) that are the most vocal about Gemini are self-proclaimed socialists. They want complete elimination of corporations and capitalism all-together, so ostensibly it might appear as 'left-libetarian' but quite the opposite. If we put on the liberatarian lenses, ideas of gemini are pretty cool but like many liberatarian ideas, they're impractical and often rooted in more emotion-than-substance. I admire the clean-slate approach sometimes because it gets rid of the cruft that we've built up over the years. It allows new tooling to be made with fresh eyes and hindsight. Think of it like the internet shedding off snake-skin.
The practical engineer in me says "We need to reinforce robustness, but also allow mad-scientists to do some wild experiments".
100% not true. They will simply pay less per impression for their ascii art ads.
The vast majority of people on the internet are not ever exposed to that kind of web (and most of those who were have moved on). How does someone even find out such a thing exists? How does someone figure out how to participate, if their entire web experience comes from facebook-twitter-youtube-instagram era?
In the 90s, the original amateur internet was something you'd be inevitably exposed to if you did anything at all on the web. Geocities was a thing, ISPs often offered free space for hosting personal home pages. I saw normies, total non-geeks make personal home pages because that's just the kind of thing people found on the web and wanted to try. My older sister had her own homepage. She's not a programmer and not a geek. Her site was a part of some webring, linking other sites made by teenage girls..
"Social media" was forums, likewise hosted by individuals, often in conjunction with their personal home pages, linking to other such sites...
I think the vast majority of it is simply gone.
I am afraid you are limiting the scope of "exploitation", as enabled by Internet, to those things done by Ad companies like Google family.
But I was mostly referring to the use of Internet for all kinds of exploitation. Think of a seller on amazon putting fake reviews in the web, or deleting actual negative reviews. They won't bother with the Gemini users because there is enough victims on the real web. But if all users are using Gemini clients, then they will be writing fake reviews in Gemini domain.
That is smaller it remains, the less penetration by big business and selfish interests, and thus the more valuable it is, for the person who wants to find real, genuine information.
This also applies to real discussion. People are going to speak freely in Gemini, because there is less chance of encountering an army of shills.
Keep an eye on sites that sell gemini identities with "reputation". Once those start popping up, you ll know its time to move on to something different.
The main difference between gemini (the protocol) and http, isn't that a gemini page need only contain text and be deprived of all other kinds of context. The gemini protocol does not stop you from interacting with specific filetypes or other protocols, any more than http does. It's a protocol. It's up to people implementing clients to the gemini protocol to decide how to handle such externalities.
E.g. the lagrange browser downloads images and displays then inline in the page, which I like. I haven't tried audio files, but I imagine they could probably work similarly if necessary.
Along similar lines, the gemtext specification is not intended as some sort of viable html alternative. It has completely different design goals.
So no, the point isn't about limiting the kind of content you can interact with. The point is, by enforcing a degree of separation between what is "content" (i.e. text), and what is "externalities", this makes simplicity of text (both in terms of presentation and production) the main driver, leaving externalities up to implementations (which may be as simple as encouraging actual external use, including an http browser for http content). More importantly, this allows the user to be in control over how these potentially abusable externalities should be handled, rather than ceding that control to the webmaster, whose agenda may not match yours as a user.
And some (including myself) actually like this separation.
That's true, but it's based on opportunistic guesses, not semantics, which prevents many use-cases (including alt-text for accessibility of images). For example, we could do the same with video, but what about alternative soundtracks/captions? HTML has <video> <audio> and <caption>. Building a browser based on auto-guessing which link is related to which one and what the relationship is between those is... hazardous in my view.
> this allows the user to be in control over how these potentially abusable externalities should be handled, rather than ceding that control to the webmaster
I love that argument! But that was also the premise for the web, and i don't understand why we're not enforcing it there. CSS was supposed to permit user stylesheets, and JS empower users to script their interactions with the server. I would argue the problem with the web is it has moved away from declarative to imperative model where the server dictates your rendering. I can see how gemini addresses this by removing extensible declarative elements altogether, but i don't think that's the only way.
Personally, i think adding more semantic elements in HTML (eg. no-JS web components) would make client-side sheets more realistic while allowing the webmaster to propose a specific stylesheet for their recommended UI/UX. Removing the semantics is not gonna help empower clients, except when it comes to plaintext content. So, adding a new content-type over HTTP? Sure. Just throw in some CommonMark: it's well-specified and more or less complete (depending on your use-case). Adding a simpler protocol for delivering content? Why not, but it's not that easy to future-proof: HTTP is arguably more complex, but has some interesting properties such as content-type/encoding negociation or decoupling from transport security (for .onion/.i2p/DANE or any other future technology).
Just to be clear i like gemini very much and i've been wanting to support gemlog to my blog for a while. I just think there's room for some other technical foundations to explore the political promises of gemini.
Many? How many? Which capsule? Who? How were they identified? What were the numbers for centrists and people who swung the opposite way politically? How was it defined?
Why would an advertiser do this? Advertisers are typically in leauge with site operators. Site operators just tell them this data (maybe with rare exceptions like superphish). Advertisers don't do this because they don't need to.
Advertisers are not the adversary tls is meant to thrawt. You don't use the lock on your door to thrawt the person who you invited in and opened the door for.
> Not every site requires SNI (yet "modern" browsers send it anyway).
Its difficult to tell if a site needs it or not at the stage where you send it. The current solution seems to be custom dns records (e.g. what ECH is doing last time i looked)
> Tell us how to reliably^1 translate any IP to a domainname at the same speed as one can sniff SNI, and with no extra effort.
The traditional answer is to just sniff the dns traffic.
Otherwise (e.g. if using DoH) just create a db of popular sites you care about. This is not trivial, but still quite easy and the easiest part of the attack being discussed by far.
Not an advertiser necessarily but any entity or person that can "monetise" the data collected. The collector might use the data itself, it might license, sell or transfer the data, it might provide services that rely on the data, who knows. Some users may not want to voluntarily share this data when they derive no benefit from doing so. We do not have to guess all the possible ways, besides locating the applicable TLS certificate, that the data might be used before we can honor the user's wish that this data not be sent in plaintext where it is not needed for choosing the certificate.
AFAIK, sniffing SNI is already used for the purpose of censorship by some countries. This has been published. It would be ignorant to think that this is the only purpose for which such data might be used, or that any purpose would always be non-commercial and unconnected, directly or indirectly, to web advertising. As the use of DoH increases, sniffing SNI would seem an easy substitute for sniffing DNS.
1. A real-time list of every domain visited by a user.
"You don't use the lock on your door to thrawt the person who you invited in and opened the door for."
For some users, advertisers are not an "invited person". What is more, companies like Google have attempted to force the use of TLS for every site, even ones where, in the user's or site operator's opinion, TLS is not needed.
"It is difficult to tell if a site needs it or not at the stage where you send it."
But this is not an argument for sending SNI by default, even where it is not needed.
A TLS proxy can be configured to distinguish sites that need it from sites that do not. This is what I do. The default configuration is to not send SNI. This makes sense because the majority of sites I visit do not require it.
As such, from where I sit, the solution chosen by modern web browsers is to prioritise websites that use CDNs that depend on SNI. The side effects for users of indiscriminantly sending SNI, i.e., sharing every domain the user visits in plaintext on the wire, are not as important as reducing costs for those websites using TLS and CDNs. Arguably, SNI is for the benefit of websites and CDNs at the expense of users. (Hopefully ECH will obviate this tradeoff.)
"Otherwise (e.g. if using DoH) just create a db of popular sites you care about."
According to this answer, 1:1 mapping is not an equally easy alternative to SNI. Sniffing SNI is "trivial" and works for any https site, whereas 1:1 mapping through a database is "non-trivial" and only works for "a selection of popular sites [one] cares about". SNI makes the task of monitoring a user's web use easy. If SNI is not available to sniff, then the task becomes more difficult. This is the point.
Sniffing SNI is easy. The theoretical 1:1 mapping alternative proposed by HN commenters is more difficult. This is the point. What is easy and reliable for all www sites versus what is more difficult and unreliable for all www sites. The point is not what is possible^2 and what is impossible. That is the red herring diversionary argument tactic that HN commenters defending gratuitous SNI like to use.
2. It is possible to avoid DNS altogether and to only send SNI when it is required. I have been doing this for years. Gather bulk DNS data and load the data into a forward TLS proxy that stores domain:IP addresses mapppings in memory and does lookups in real-time as requests are received.
> If whatever you want to happen is threatened by Gemini
I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists. The person who would otherwise catalyze B's existence and success doesn't, because they think that A is sufficient and/or anyone they might talk to about B would just respond, "I dunno; isn't that what A is for?" You can see this with Mozilla, for example. (As a former Mozillian, that's what I had in mind at the time I wrote the linked blog post.) I have become especially sensitive to this after my experience between 2006–2013 and seeing the contrast of that time period vs Mozilla's role over the last 10 years—which is basically a black hole that keeps people from effectively organizing anything that resembles the early days of Firefox development. I recognized something similar after moving to Austin in 2014 and signing up for lots of volunteer events that were by-and-large just organized to be ways for affluent young professionals to feel like they're doing good by burning their attention surpluses, whether or not any of those events were actually a worthwhile use of those resources. See also:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-f...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10029811
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302645
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
> If you want to wait until everyone else stops trying new ideas
That's the opposite of my position—which is that Gemini is sucking the air out of the room.
This risk is omnipresent in the universe. We never know what possible futures we cut off when we make a fork in the road. You don't ever step into the same river twice. However, this risk also applies to the projects you like. If we all worried about this we'd not do anything. Rhetoric like "Gemini sucking the air out of the room," "person who spends 250 hours working on Gemini," "it's like voluntourism," -- I could just as well replace Gemini with triplescripts throughout your comments.
Not the argument I'm making. I'm observing that others' energy that gets captured (or more accurately, spent; i.e., fails to be captured for use elsewhere) as a consequence of Gemini's gravity is wasted. It's necessary to make a distinction between Gemini's originators and people sucked into its orbit.
Abolish capitalism and its central enforcement militia (the State) and suddenly diversity will be brought back to life. Without legal/physical threats (police/tribunals) and indoctrination (schools/media) to persuade the weird folks from being weird, we'll see more and more unique stuff.
What causes the difference? I don't know. It might be down to city planning causing people to walk more and reducing the friction of entering a random store to get lunch. It could be something to do with real estate laws. It might just be cultural expectations.
Point is, this "big chain culture" is not universal and not inevitable. It's something we humans created in certain areas.
If you can, don't let chains setup store near your home. If you can't, seriously consider getting involved in sabotage operations with people you trust. That's how Google ended backing off from Kreuzberg (Berlin) a few years back. Mac Donald's also had a few famous burnt-down "restaurants" here in France, but sabotage doesn't have to involve flames. A pack of sugar down the concrete-mixer will do the trick. If the shop has opened already, anything to block the locks will block business for at least a few hours.
It's David vs Goliath but if you've got support from your neighborhood you can win. Just don't ever think police and politicians are on your side.
Wild tomatoes are red, tiny, and barely useful as food. The myriad heirloom tomato shapes and colors you’re referencing were all carefully sought after and stabilized by human gardeners.
They've been groomed for generations, yes. But they've not been stabilized. When i talk about the variety of tomato colors/tastes, this is something natural that will happen over a few generations in your garden.
Plants will often borrow taste from other surrounding plants, as for color i have no clue what triggers them to change, but i've seen with my own eyes after a few years, new generations of vegetables starting to change colors (not uniformly across the entire garden). This of course is not possible with trees (eg. apples/oranges) as you would need to wait several generations of trees (that's a long time), nor is it possible when you plant seeds from the supermarket every year to replace last year's plants, as the commercial seeds are almost bit-by-bit copies of one another and will yield the same tasteless tomatoes bypassing the natural circle of evolution to your local environment.
If you can, i strongly encourage to go talk to local farmers and borrow a few seeds. There's some amazing stuff out there which you won't find in commercial gardening shops. At least that's the case here in France, where the government for many years made it illegal/criminal to share or sell "peasant crops" (which a judge ruled is legal only a few years back).
And Gemini in this case is happy to achieve the same result.
So here, we end up in a situation that because silicon valley moguls exploited an extensible protocol (by hijacking the standardizing committee to their profit) we adopt a self-defense reflex of making everything minimalist to reduce the attack surface.
I'm interested in low-tech/ecology in general. For me, the equivalent in the physical world would be if you're not happy with a house using too much resources/energy so you decide to live without walls or floor, with a simple ceiling over the head. Sure it does the job of protecting you from rainfall, but does it fit all the other functionalities we expect from a home? I'm much more interested in a clay-based (or other local materials) housing, personally.
You must be using a different definition of “stabilized” than the horticultural sense, because it is absurd to suggest that tomato varieties are not stable.
> If you can, i strongly encourage to go talk to local farmers and borrow a few seeds. There's some amazing stuff out there which you won't find in commercial gardening shops.
I’m a member of a seed saving exchange and active in my local growing community. Horticulture is my primary hobby.
Possible, but painful. Take HN's official search engine, for example: https://hn.algolia.com/
I open it. "This page will only work with JavaScript enabled" sigh Accept JS from hn.algolia.net and the mangled cloudfront domain (and make sure not to accept ravenjs.com). Possibly cdn.jsdelivr.net if I want to spare a click later, because I don't know if it's useful (it's not). Reload. Now the results are blank. Ah, it makes XHRs to telemetry.algolia.net, a mangled algolia.net domain, and three mangled algolianet.com domains. Think for a second. Accept the latter too (actually, either is enough, but I don't know that). Reload. Oh, it works now. Luckily there isn't a privacy consent popup I need to reject (or block with uBlock).
It's exhausting to do that almost every time you visit a new website. And with https:// URLs, you don't know ahead of time how many rounds of accepting you'll need to do before opening.
I’m not convinced that an entirely new protocol is necessary. How is the Gemini experience different from just browsing all webpages with JS disabled, or if you want to go even further, using a web browser that just doesn’t implement JavaScript?
There are all sorts of uses for cryptographic proofs; e.g. you can sign a document and prove that you were the one who signed it, or you can do a bunch of double-SHA hashes and prove ownership of a Bitcoin, you can prove via a SSL certificate that the content that claims to come from somedomain.example actually does, etc etc.
But there's no way, via currently existing protocols, to deliver a document with a proof that the document does not contain code designed to track the user or that the document will display properly without running arbitrary scripts.
Gemini is bikeshedding, yes. But it solves this social problem - a problem of expectations. You can't make a webpage with tracking scripts and deliver it over Gemeni because there's no point. No one who received the document would actually execute any of the scripts. So Gemini succeeds at creating a little insular community where tracking and web analytics are not just forbidden, but impossible.
I like that the protocols prevent any abuse.
I've been blocking JS for a damn long time but it just breaks so many things. And if you selectively block JS with umatrix, that also breaks things sometimes.
I gotta say I'm really fed up with playing whack a mole. I'd like to find a corner of the internet where things just work and don't have antifeatures.
My position is something that I know you already agree with. You can't write, "Surely anything Gemini does or doesn't isn't as damaging as status quo" and think that my argument is unsound—because it's the same concept.
> If you concentrate your energies there
The last thing that we need is _more_ energy being lost to the Gemini sinkhole. That's the whole point!
[1] gopher://forthworks.com/1/contrition
> you could only do that if the basis of my comment were about generic, FOMO-driven hand-wringing, where A is unbound, so substitute any A and the criticism remains true. That's not what we're talking about.
