|
|
|
|
|
|
by notriddle
1345 days ago
|
|
|
It mostly only solves problems on the consumer side. Only one of these downsides directly affects publishers. * If you don't want JS, don't use it. * If you don't want trackers or ads, don't put them in. * This is the only publisher-touching downside, and LetsEncrypt is an effective mitigation. * If you want to make a site Lynx-compatible, test it in Lynx. * The downsides of this are too diffuse to immediately drive demand. Nobody is directly impacted by it. |
|
|
on the client side it ensures that JS, ADS, trackers etc won't be there and the client can bet there will be no surprise
Gemini is the equivalent of "make the impossible states impossible"
The best a malevolent publisher can do is look at the logs, because not even the transparent pixel is allowed.
It's worth pointing out that the goal of Gemini is not to replace the WEB and that it it is still possible to publish pure HTML web sites with the same characteristics (but for how long?)
also Gemini has no headers so no cookies, that, depending on the platform, could be out of the control of the publisher.
I am working (slowly) on some Gemini project
Mainly because there is no money involved in it and monetisation is not a thing.
Gemini, for example, makes it really easy to build search engines that actually work and cannot be weaponized against their users
Because the protocol is so limited that it's impossible, or highly impractical, to follow that route (no money also means no incentive)