> 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 constraint

> 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.