4 ms·

If you're looking for hypocrisy, the project FAQ (https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi) says it's suppose

by kixiQu 5y ago

If you're looking for hypocrisy, the project FAQ (https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi) says it's supposed to be for people who are: > Opposed to the web's ubiquitous tracking of users > Tired of nagging pop-ups, obnoxious adverts, autoplaying videos and other misfeatures of the modern web Mere design you find distasteful wouldn't really signify here. If you're talking about someone who's tracking and got autoplaying video on their site, I'm interested to hear who that'd be! (For the record, I am not a champion of Gemini, and I like how MySpacey my personal site looks; I just don't think this is a fair take)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cxr 5y ago
I did not offer any feedback about subjective matters of tasteful web design. I did not accuse anyone of including adtech (of the tracking type or not) and autoplaying videos. I don't need to, and it's irrelevant besides. I offered only a very simple litmus test for measuring a commitment to values. I'll go further now, though, and say that I find your response to be not just unfair, and not just deceptive, but deceptive in a really insidious way. In addition to crafting a suggestive response that tacitly asks the reader to attribute two flawed arguments to me (re "design you find distasteful", and you're being "interested to hear" "who's tracking and got autoplaying video on their site"—two really obnoxious strawmen), you've used selective quoting of the linked FAQ to present a narrow target and paint a picture of a fundamental conflict between my remarks and the essence of Gemini. Extremely bold to do that while in the next breath having the confidence to offer an opinion about what is or is not a "fair take". Gemini's proponents purport to be interested in a set of values. Proponents defend Gemini's design in terms of those values; the values form design constraints that inform all aspects of the project (including, for example, its markup format). Given that it is possible for Gemini residents to demonstrate a commitment to those values even with vanilla HTML and HTTP—because one is forcing anyone to make use of any of the Web technologies that Gemini omits—then we should expect them to do exactly that. The litmus test is to ask whether they do that, or whether they expect the downstream recipients of their own work to be comfortable compromising on those very same values when it comes to consuming media over the Web. This is the _entirety_ the argument I laid out before.
- kixiQu 5y ago
  > Gemini's proponents purport to be interested in a set of values. Proponents defend Gemini's design in terms of those values; the values form design constraints that inform all aspects of the project (including, for example, its markup format). Given that it is possible for Gemini residents to demonstrate a commitment to those values even with vanilla HTML and HTTP—because one is forcing anyone to make use of any of the Web technologies that Gemini omits—then we should expect them to do exactly that. > you've used selective quoting of the linked FAQ to present a narrow target If there's a part of the FAQ I've not quoted that commits Gemini's proponents to the value of making websites "look [...] like those found on cr.yp.to", please let me know. That is: I don't think it's fair to argue from the idea of judging a "commitment to values" that aren't explicitly claimed by the project. That's not suggestion; I'm just saying it. If you can't be explicit about what's been committed to and how the commitment's been broken, then it's not me being "suggestive." If you do want to elaborate on that, I remain genuinely interested to hear it, because I still think it's possible you have stuff in mind that I don't know about. I broadly agree with you that it's fair to judge Gemini folks by their HTTP/S sites. However, for it to have anything to do with "how deep their convictions run", that judgment has to refer to their actual convictions, not just your preferences or mine.
  - cxr 5y ago
    I'm not wasting more time on more bullshit strawmen. > I remain genuinely interested to hear it, because I still think it's possible you have stuff in mind I have no interest in corresponding with you further. > I don't think it's fair to argue from the idea of judging a "commitment to values" that aren't explicitly claimed (Odd position to take, given how many arguments you've tried to sneak into my mouth.)

by kixiQu 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cxr 5y ago

I did not offer any feedback about subjective matters of tasteful web design. I did not accuse anyone of including adtech (of the tracking type or not) and autoplaying videos. I don't need to, and it's irrelevant besides. I offered only a very simple litmus test for measuring a commitment to values. I'll go further now, though, and say that I find your response to be not just unfair, and not just deceptive, but deceptive in a really insidious way. In addition to crafting a suggestive response that tacitly asks the reader to attribute two flawed arguments to me (re "design you find distasteful", and you're being "interested to hear" "who's tracking and got autoplaying video on their site"—two really obnoxious strawmen), you've used selective quoting of the linked FAQ to present a narrow target and paint a picture of a fundamental conflict between my remarks and the essence of Gemini. Extremely bold to do that while in the next breath having the confidence to offer an opinion about what is or is not a "fair take". Gemini's proponents purport to be interested in a set of values. Proponents defend Gemini's design in terms of those values; the values form design constraints that inform all aspects of the project (including, for example, its markup format). Given that it is possible for Gemini residents to demonstrate a commitment to those values even with vanilla HTML and HTTP—because one is forcing anyone to make use of any of the Web technologies that Gemini omits—then we should expect them to do exactly that. The litmus test is to ask whether they do that, or whether they expect the downstream recipients of their own work to be comfortable compromising on those very same values when it comes to consuming media over the Web. This is the _entirety_ the argument I laid out before.

kixiQu 5y ago
> Gemini's proponents purport to be interested in a set of values. Proponents defend Gemini's design in terms of those values; the values form design constraints that inform all aspects of the project (including, for example, its markup format). Given that it is possible for Gemini residents to demonstrate a commitment to those values even with vanilla HTML and HTTP—because one is forcing anyone to make use of any of the Web technologies that Gemini omits—then we should expect them to do exactly that. > you've used selective quoting of the linked FAQ to present a narrow target If there's a part of the FAQ I've not quoted that commits Gemini's proponents to the value of making websites "look [...] like those found on cr.yp.to", please let me know. That is: I don't think it's fair to argue from the idea of judging a "commitment to values" that aren't explicitly claimed by the project. That's not suggestion; I'm just saying it. If you can't be explicit about what's been committed to and how the commitment's been broken, then it's not me being "suggestive." If you do want to elaborate on that, I remain genuinely interested to hear it, because I still think it's possible you have stuff in mind that I don't know about. I broadly agree with you that it's fair to judge Gemini folks by their HTTP/S sites. However, for it to have anything to do with "how deep their convictions run", that judgment has to refer to their actual convictions, not just your preferences or mine.
- cxr 5y ago
  I'm not wasting more time on more bullshit strawmen. > I remain genuinely interested to hear it, because I still think it's possible you have stuff in mind I have no interest in corresponding with you further. > I don't think it's fair to argue from the idea of judging a "commitment to values" that aren't explicitly claimed (Odd position to take, given how many arguments you've tried to sneak into my mouth.)