In his recent post "Reframing the philosophy of Gemini"[1], Drew DeVault describes how he sees Gemini's core philosophy as being about read-only content distribution.
I challenge this as the central tenet of Gemini, but I can see how one could draw this conclusion from what I believe Gemini's true philosophy to be.
I think Gemini's core philosophy is simplicity. Uncompromising simplicity. Simplicity to the degree that one could have the entire specification memorised. It stands in contrast to the "living" spec of the Web; an every-growing monster that can only be tamed by billion-dollar corporations.
By being simple, Gemini is able to thrive amongst people who can only dedicate their free time to it. It does not need to seek venture capital to succeed. It is sort of a pact between the user and the developers. We, the users, agree to live with a tool that is simplistic in nature, that lacks many features we've grown accustomed to, so that the developers can work on the platform in their spare time. That they may do so without the need for it to be financially viable as a business venture.
Now, one could argue, that one of the things that must be compromised on to reach this goal is interactinility. After all, it is Java applet, flash plugins, and now JavaScript-fueled web apps that ruined the Web's simplicity. And maybe it is necessary to sacrifice interactibility for the sake of simplisity. But also maybe not.
There are some fantastic little services here on Gemini that genuinely enrich people's lives. Whether it's chatrooms like Station[2] and Geddit[3], or little games like AstroBotany[4]. I don't think their existence is hurting anyone, and I don't think they're distracting from Gemini's simplicity. I think there is a little room for interactibility without adding complexity to the protocol, without burdening clients and servers with unmanageable complexity.
One can make a read-only content delivery system atop the Web just fine. My personal website arguably is just that. But with the Web the temptation is always there to add more. Styles, animations, scripts, and on and on. The constraints of Gemini keep me on the straight and narrow. That is where the platform's value lies.
Maybe interactive content is in, maybe it is out, but primarily it's about simplicity, and it is that that should drive the decision. If rich interactive content can be done in a way that sits within the constraints of the ecosystem then where is the harm?
I think it's a fine line to thread, and honestly I think we -- as a community -- are doing a great job of it.
[1] :: Reframing the philosophy of Gemini
Last Updated: 2021-11-18