We vastly underestimate what could be done with a powerful browser. Ad blockers are just the tip of the iceberg.
A powerful browser could work, e.g, as the basis for any type of local-first application and we would solve 98% of the issues of social media networks by letting the browser in control of the functionality. [0] We have web browsers that can let you browse through Tor and we would get rid of data tracking. We can have a "good guy's version" of HolaVPN where people could still cooperate in the data proxying, but without the data selling part. Brave gets a lot of shit because of their crypto stuff, but if more people were seriously looking at their platform as a privacy-preserving opt-in monetization platform, we would be a far better place that we are nowadays.
We can not do any of that with an user agent that can do nothing but fetch and present text documents. We need an actual application platform.
The issues you're talking about (surveillance capitalism, the attention economy) aren’t just browser problems. They're systemic societal and economic forces that go far beyond what a browser can fix. People accept surveillance and attention-hacking in every part of their lives: phones, smart TVs, credit cards, physical store visits. Thinking a better browser setup will meaningfully push back against that feels..... extremely optimistic at best. And that's me being quite charitable in my choice of words.
Also, I think it’s worth noting that you seem to be arguing against points no one here is actually making. Most people in this thread — myself included — aren’t claiming Gemini is a replacement for the entire web, or that it can dismantle surveillance capitalism. We’re just discussing a tool that works well for certain use cases.
As bayindirh pointed out in another reply to you:
> Again for the third and last time: I and other people replying to you didn't say Gemini is a replacement to HTTP. It's a neat little protocol which does some things well and used for some use cases, which happens to my main use cases for the thingy called web.
> I have no qualms with your choices with views, but to try to portray your confirmation bias as what I and others say is stuffing words to others' mouth and is an insult to people's intelligence.
A conversation only works when people respond to what’s actually being said — not to imagined arguments. I’d really appreciate it if you could take a step back and engage with the points people are making, rather than framing everyone as advocating for something they’re not.
A powerful browser could work, e.g, as the basis for any type of local-first application and we would solve 98% of the issues of social media networks by letting the browser in control of the functionality. [0] We have web browsers that can let you browse through Tor and we would get rid of data tracking. We can have a "good guy's version" of HolaVPN where people could still cooperate in the data proxying, but without the data selling part. Brave gets a lot of shit because of their crypto stuff, but if more people were seriously looking at their platform as a privacy-preserving opt-in monetization platform, we would be a far better place that we are nowadays.
We can not do any of that with an user agent that can do nothing but fetch and present text documents. We need an actual application platform.
[0]: https://raphael.lullis.net/a-plan-for-social-media-less-fedi...