> Those who use Gemini find value in it. The fact that your primary answer is a tautology is telling. I'm asking what value I should find from it, what value

> Those who use Gemini find value in it. The fact that your primary answer is a tautology is telling. I'm asking what value I should find from it, what value I get from going down this bespoke, inaccessible, poorly tooled path versus using the web with it's widely-used tools, billions of users and a million onramps? > Nothing compels people to use Gemini aside from their own personal interest. Nothing compels me to use it, but nothing incentivizes me to use it, either. I'd like a static site generator for my blog. Why would I pick Gemini over Jekyll, Hugo, etc.? That's the missing part of the story. > And why paint it in terms of negatives? People tend to compare Gemini to a crippled version of the web simply because that's what most of the world uses, but is more accurate to claim it is a modernized version of Gopher. People tend to compare Gemini to a crippled version of the web simply because that's what it is. All of your arguments on how it's better than Gopher ignore the fact that the web has all of those same features. It's negative because the web already did that, it's already a modernized version of Gopher. That's why we use it and not Gopher. That battle was lost when either NCSA Mosaic or Netscape Navigator was released 20something years ago.