Kevin Boone: The Gemini Protocol in 2026: growing, but still not setting the Internet aflame
kevinboone.me
The Gemini protocol has been around for over five years, but the world-wide web remains broken. This articles reviews what’s changed for the better over the last five years – and what hasn’t.

With surveillance capitalism reaching it’s peak in 2026/2027, is getting out the Web the only way for the privacy inclined user?

Will Gemini (or cousins) go the way of Linux? Or is it foverer condemned to go the way of Hurd

  • Melobol@lemmy.ml
    4·
    11 hours ago

    I loved their note:

    Note: This article is about Gemini, the HTTP-like Internet protocol for document browsing, and not the large language model or the cryptocurrency of the same name. Nor it is about astrology.

    The idea sounds interesting. I’m not against trying new things, but it seems kinda dead in the water?
    For me forums were big part of my Internet history - but it is history. I’m not sure many people would choose to go back…

    • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.mlOP
      4·
      10 hours ago

      This is not about nostalgia but to fight against surveillance weaponization and commoditification of what was once a tool for knowledge sharing. The old internet of bulletin boards and irc was essentially human, this thing we have now is something else. Did you chuckle at that chunck of text and not get where the author (as many of us) was standing from?

      • Melobol@lemmy.ml
        1·
        10 hours ago

        It feels like the good old Ivory Tower. “The let’s lock ourselves in!” mentality never worked in changing the world for a beter place.
        I’m not saying having principles and standing against slop/spyware/privacy nightmare is bad. But it feels a bit off to me.
        I wish the best, and I want the best for the future.

          • Melobol@lemmy.ml
            1·
            10 hours ago

            I don’t understand the second part of your comment.
            If you want to make something better you think insulting others will do it?

            A ‘new’ protocol that won’t have much chance to be inseminated into the general population just means those projects will separate the idealist groups into smaller groups. Who would probably have more chance working together against the big system.
            Hence locking yourself in the tower.

            Edit: typo

            • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.mlOP
              21·
              6 hours ago

              Let me mince this to you in a more palatable bit but with Marxist praxis: working together under the same old status quo is exactly what put all of us in the cage. There won’t be a magical popular new protocol being birthed from the void: it’s precisely the myriad of options that will allow the best one to be battle tested (in politics, we call this the two-line struggle although there are more than two lines in dispute) and gain traction. Idealism is expecting that the same old strategy of putting up with what exists right now for the lack of a sure win strategy will defeat the greed corporations controlling the current Web, the current social complacency, the gerrymandering, the two parties system, the capitalism.

              • Melobol@lemmy.ml
                1·
                9 hours ago

                I never said use the same status quo. Gather in bigger groups. You are being conquered by being divided.
                My problem is the miniscule groups. Just look at the other comments. No one said: “yes, this is the future!”.
                Ivory tower.

                • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.mlOP
                  2·
                  9 hours ago

                  That’s not really how it works. Greater groups allow some atrocities like the DSA calling themselves socialist and deviate to the status quo. Unity in theory and action is a necessity before greater numbers.

                  • Melobol@lemmy.ml
                    2·
                    9 hours ago

                    Do you even realize what you are doing?

                    Insulting the conversation partner just because you can.
                    Avoiding and not even acknowledging talking points.
                    Preaching propaganda, name dropping.
                    You are not showing anything that’s positive and actually open to discussion. Very demagogue.

                    And you made it sure I never going to pay attention to this project again.