7 ms·

I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better. The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs an

by sneak 1y ago

I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better. The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs and shitted up with 3p resources and images and code. HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem upset with the modern web, and I am too - but it isn’t HTTP’s fault. It’s the sites you visit. If you want to build new and smaller communities, I really think we should be building for browsers. Perhaps a website design manifesto is in order.

treve 1y ago
The limits of the medium and the creativity this enforces is why people like it. It caters a niche audience with a shared set of values. I get why people don't really care for it personally or on a technical level (myself included), but it always surprises me that it's hard for people to understand that others do.
- jay_kyburz 1y ago
  I agree the limitations are what makes the platform great, but I really wish they had included a simple image block in the spec. Text only is just a little to limiting if you ask me.
  - rainingmonkey 1y ago
    Many browsers will render a link to an image as an embedded image block!
MrVandemar 1y ago
> The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs and shitted up with 3p resources and images and code. That is a microscopic subset of the modern web. I don't use Gemini— though I am highly tempted —but I expect some of the attraction is that you can click on any link and pretty much guaranteed not to be socked in the face with a sign-up-for-my-newsletter or cookies-accept-all-yes-later or paragraph-ad-paragraph-ad-paragraph-ad or fiddling with NoScript to find the minimum amount of Javascript that will let you read some article that looks interesting. In Gemini, all that friction just goes away.
- sneak 1y ago
  You can achieve that on HTTP with a browser extension or customized browser that checks for certain tags in the page, or disables certain features altogether. It isn’t the transport’s fault.
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    With all respect, this viewpoint rivals the infamous Dropbox comment.
    - rglullis 1y ago
      Problem: 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? A) Develop a whole new transport protocol that does less than HTTP, develop client applications that use this protocol, convince a sufficient number of people to use this protocol, at least to the point where the majority of your activity happens there? or B) Install a handful of browser extensions that block ads and other nuisances on the modern www, and have it working right away?
      - uamgeoalsk 1y ago
        What's more fun? Definitely A.
        rglullis 1y ago
        You are not solving the stated problem. You are just admitting that working on a new protocol is a masturbatory, "the journey is the reward" kind of exercise.
        uamgeoalsk 1y ago
        I'm not aiming to solve the stated problem, I'm having fun with gemini.
      - 1y ago
mattkevan 1y ago
I’ve been exploring this problem for a while, and have been building something which I think might help solve it. I’m currently building a browser-based static site generator that produces clean, simple code. But it does more than that. Alongside the generated HTML, sites also publish their public configuration and source files, meaning they can be viewed in more than just a browser, for example in a CLI or accessibility device. The client interface is also more than a CMS - you’ll be able to follow other sites, subscribing to updates, and build a network rather like a webring. The idea is to provide human-powered discovery and community tools. The reach may be less than if algorithmic, but it’s designed for genuine connection, not virality. As the client is smart but sites are simple, sites can be hosted on anything, from the cheapest shared host up. I’d be happy to talk further if that’s interesting in any way.
- rglullis 1y ago
  That sounds a bit like the dat browser, no?
  - mattkevan 1y ago
    Not familiar with dat browser, but I'll take a look. You can see an early beta of what I'm thinking about here: https://app.sparktype.org/#/sites https://app.sparktype.org/#/sites
- CJefferson 1y ago
  In terms of levels of current support, you would be hard-pressed to find anything better for accessibility than simple, well-formed HTML. It's better even than plain text.
_Algernon_ 1y ago
HTTP is intermingled with a lot of the shitty SPAs, advertising and SEO of the web. You can make a simple text only site but the noise of the modern web is only ever a couple of clicks away. Gemini silos itself off. You know that a link you click will be an equally clean text-first site. To me that is the feature.
prmoustache 1y ago
HTTP is great but with AI crawling being all over the place maybe it is not a bad idea to publish in a safe / niche place if one is not obsessed on how much people will be reached. I am saying this but I have no idea if AI crawlers have started to crawl gem capsules.
Gormo 1y ago
> I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better. I'm not sure I understand that. HTTP is the fundamental protocol of the web. If your goal is to create an ecosystem that is deliberately set apart from the web, how would using the same underlying tech stack help rather than hinder you in doing that? > HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem upset with the modern web, and I am too - but it isn’t HTTP’s fault. It’s the sites you visit. And why are those sites so awful? Did they decide to become awful from the outset, or is it because they've gradually adapted to a userbase that has regressed to the mean due to the mass-market nature of the web? The whole point of developing a new protocol is to create a non-negligible threshold of though and effort for participation, precisely so that it doesn't get popular quickly and end up subjected to Eternal September.
- hombre_fatal 1y ago
  Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it. Requiring a markdown content-type would probably even be enough. Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it, so it seems more sane to be HTTP native.
  - Gormo 1y ago
    > Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it. But why would you bother with that, when your whole goal is to create an ecosystem that's separate from the web in the first place? > Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it. Seems more sane to be HTTP native. Podcasts are often rehosted on YouTube, blog content is often reposted to social media, etc. Making content viewable from the other medium without making it native to the other medium is a common practice, and wouldn't defeat the purpose of trying to build a distinct ecosystem on top of the same foundation that underlies the ecosystem you're trying to avoid.
    - 1y ago

by sneak 1y ago

treve 1y ago

The limits of the medium and the creativity this enforces is why people like it. It caters a niche audience with a shared set of values. I get why people don't really care for it personally or on a technical level (myself included), but it always surprises me that it's hard for people to understand that others do.

jay_kyburz 1y ago
I agree the limitations are what makes the platform great, but I really wish they had included a simple image block in the spec. Text only is just a little to limiting if you ask me.
- rainingmonkey 1y ago
  Many browsers will render a link to an image as an embedded image block!

MrVandemar 1y ago

> The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs and shitted up with 3p resources and images and code. That is a microscopic subset of the modern web. I don't use Gemini— though I am highly tempted —but I expect some of the attraction is that you can click on any link and pretty much guaranteed not to be socked in the face with a sign-up-for-my-newsletter or cookies-accept-all-yes-later or paragraph-ad-paragraph-ad-paragraph-ad or fiddling with NoScript to find the minimum amount of Javascript that will let you read some article that looks interesting. In Gemini, all that friction just goes away.

sneak 1y ago
You can achieve that on HTTP with a browser extension or customized browser that checks for certain tags in the page, or disables certain features altogether. It isn’t the transport’s fault.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  With all respect, this viewpoint rivals the infamous Dropbox comment.
  - rglullis 1y ago
    Problem: 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? A) Develop a whole new transport protocol that does less than HTTP, develop client applications that use this protocol, convince a sufficient number of people to use this protocol, at least to the point where the majority of your activity happens there? or B) Install a handful of browser extensions that block ads and other nuisances on the modern www, and have it working right away?
    - uamgeoalsk 1y ago
      What's more fun? Definitely A.
      - rglullis 1y ago
        You are not solving the stated problem. You are just admitting that working on a new protocol is a masturbatory, "the journey is the reward" kind of exercise.
        uamgeoalsk 1y ago
        I'm not aiming to solve the stated problem, I'm having fun with gemini.
    - 1y ago

mattkevan 1y ago

I’ve been exploring this problem for a while, and have been building something which I think might help solve it. I’m currently building a browser-based static site generator that produces clean, simple code. But it does more than that. Alongside the generated HTML, sites also publish their public configuration and source files, meaning they can be viewed in more than just a browser, for example in a CLI or accessibility device. The client interface is also more than a CMS - you’ll be able to follow other sites, subscribing to updates, and build a network rather like a webring. The idea is to provide human-powered discovery and community tools. The reach may be less than if algorithmic, but it’s designed for genuine connection, not virality. As the client is smart but sites are simple, sites can be hosted on anything, from the cheapest shared host up. I’d be happy to talk further if that’s interesting in any way.

rglullis 1y ago
That sounds a bit like the dat browser, no?
- mattkevan 1y ago
  Not familiar with dat browser, but I'll take a look. You can see an early beta of what I'm thinking about here: https://app.sparktype.org/#/sites https://app.sparktype.org/#/sites
CJefferson 1y ago
In terms of levels of current support, you would be hard-pressed to find anything better for accessibility than simple, well-formed HTML. It's better even than plain text.

_Algernon_ 1y ago

HTTP is intermingled with a lot of the shitty SPAs, advertising and SEO of the web. You can make a simple text only site but the noise of the modern web is only ever a couple of clicks away. Gemini silos itself off. You know that a link you click will be an equally clean text-first site. To me that is the feature.

prmoustache 1y ago

HTTP is great but with AI crawling being all over the place maybe it is not a bad idea to publish in a safe / niche place if one is not obsessed on how much people will be reached. I am saying this but I have no idea if AI crawlers have started to crawl gem capsules.

Gormo 1y ago

> I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better. I'm not sure I understand that. HTTP is the fundamental protocol of the web. If your goal is to create an ecosystem that is deliberately set apart from the web, how would using the same underlying tech stack help rather than hinder you in doing that? > HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem upset with the modern web, and I am too - but it isn’t HTTP’s fault. It’s the sites you visit. And why are those sites so awful? Did they decide to become awful from the outset, or is it because they've gradually adapted to a userbase that has regressed to the mean due to the mass-market nature of the web? The whole point of developing a new protocol is to create a non-negligible threshold of though and effort for participation, precisely so that it doesn't get popular quickly and end up subjected to Eternal September.

hombre_fatal 1y ago
Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it. Requiring a markdown content-type would probably even be enough. Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it, so it seems more sane to be HTTP native.
- Gormo 1y ago
  > Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it. But why would you bother with that, when your whole goal is to create an ecosystem that's separate from the web in the first place? > Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it. Seems more sane to be HTTP native. Podcasts are often rehosted on YouTube, blog content is often reposted to social media, etc. Making content viewable from the other medium without making it native to the other medium is a common practice, and wouldn't defeat the purpose of trying to build a distinct ecosystem on top of the same foundation that underlies the ecosystem you're trying to avoid.
  - 1y ago