gemini://tilde.team/~khuxkm/gemlog/re-keeping-gemini-difficult.gmi

This is going to be in a "quote and rebutt" format that should seem familiar to anyone who's seen an argument in a mailing list. For the full context, read the gemlog post (it's linked just below)

> I think the idea that we need to shield the users from how technology works is a terrible, terrible mistake. It disempowers the users, and concentrates power in the hands of a technological elite, and that divide is only going to grow.

I agree that tomasino's post[1] was a bit half-baked, but it was more of a thought experiment than a "this is the thing that has to be built" in my opinion.

> We already have an alarming number of people working with computers, and some may even be programmers, that simply do not understand how computers work. Their only concept of a computer is the user interface on the screen. The rest is unintelligible wizardry. Nobody has told them, it's been deemed too complicated, nothing for them to worry their little heads about.

This is a problem, but I fail to see how making Gemini easier to use is going to rUiN eVeRyThInG!!!1!(eleven)!

> If you treat people like children, they act like children, they think like children, they for all intents and purposes become trapped in perpetual childhood. Helpless and dependent, forever. What we need to do is treat people as dignified human beings capable of learning and understanding and overcoming challenges, if we do, they become capable, they learn and rise to the occasion, they are empowered and become independent; in short, they're allowed to enter adulthood. We need to teach the users of technology how to make a fire on their own, even though they may get burnt, and even though it requires more than installing an app on the store.

I agree with this thought in principle. We *should* teach people how to use SSH/set up Gemini servers/etc. However, nobody's going to bother. The very issue you describe (people being treated like children) is the very reason why we have to simplify a little. Anybody coming in is going to see what we have, say "Ugh, this is a lot of work for no gain", and leave, before we can even start gathering the firewood!

> In that regards, I think one of best aspects of Gemini is that it actually has a bar to entry. If you want to do more than just reading, you need to invest some time into understanding what you are contributing to. It's not incredibly difficult, but it does demand a modicum of technological understanding. That obstacle is a ultimately good thing. As much as it excludes those who are unwilling to invest in overcoming it, also it elevates those who do.

> [The idea that we need to shield the users from how technology works] disempowers the users, and concentrates power in the hands of a technological elite, and that divide is only going to grow.

And yet here you say that having a divide between tech people and users is a *good thing*? Can I have some of what you're smoking? It must be some good stuff!

> I think there's too much of a push to dumb things down for non-technical users at the expense of flexibility/usability of the software and sometimes at the chagrin of power users.

Where did tomasino say anything about restricting power users? Power users won't be using a client that does authoring, they'll be doing the authoring themselves! And, with the client (presumably) being open source, the power users could presumably just... do what the client does, and still participate in GemJournal or whatever.

> I think too often developers will treat other developers like idiots, when in reality, they should be tailoring it to the audience.

That's... what tomasino's doing? He wants something that will be tailored towards people who aren't "technological elite" and don't know a public key from their house key. You and marginalia want something that will be tailored towards... the technological elite? The technological elite *already have Gemini servers of their own* and *don't need this*.

> Furthermore, the process of dumbing things down does wrestle away power from the user to the developer. It creates this infuriating relationship where the developer has more control over the application than the user does and the user's resource is mainly filing issues and feedback (real life example: Firefox).

In this case (a purpose-built client to make authoring easier) the user *couldn't even use the power you're giving them*. This client is specifically supposed to be built for people who don't know what they're doing; they'd be reduced to filing issues and feedback regardless!

> At the end of the day, complaints about simplifying things I think are always misguided and result in lesser products. I'm not saying that we can't make things easier for people, but this approach is misguided.

So what would you propose? In the end, tomasino came up with a hypothetical system that would lower the bar for entry and allow non-power users to join Gemini, and that's the issue with this post (and the post it was responding to): you're not coming up with replacement ideas. If people like Sean Conner hadn't come up with replacements for the ideas that they felt came up short, we wouldn't be here.

RE: Keeping Gemini Difficult

Reference Links