4 ms·

> 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.

> 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 1y ago
> 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 https://cosocial.ca/@evan/113143389340566731
- uamgeoalsk 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    > 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 1y ago
      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 1y ago

> 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 https://cosocial.ca/@evan/113143389340566731

uamgeoalsk 1y ago
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 1y ago
  > 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 1y ago
    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.