[bayindirh]

> 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.

With no hard feelings, have a nice day. :)

Hope to see you around in another thread.

[rglullis]

> Shall the number go up indefinitely?

False dichotomy.

> 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.

[0]: https://cosocial.ca/@evan/113143389340566731

[uamgeoalsk]

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.

[rglullis]

> 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.

[uamgeoalsk]

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.

[rglullis]

> 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.

[uamgeoalsk]

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.

[bayindirh]

> 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.

[rglullis]

> 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.

[bayindirh]

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.