←back to thread

Project Gemini

(geminiprotocol.net)
327 points andsoitis | 5 comments | 17 Nov 25 15:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cantalopes ◴[18 Nov 25 08:26 UTC] No.45962689[source]▶
I have read and liked the philosophy, no inline images, no tracking, nondistraction, no extensioms, security, etc.

so i went and downloaded the first android gemini browser from the links called "buran".

Then i surfee around links people posted in here.

Came upon a site gemini://hellomouse.net

First thing i see: an inline image that is against very principles of gemini and shouldn't be allowed

What am i doing wrong?

replies(1): >>45962988 #
troupo ◴[18 Nov 25 09:11 UTC] No.45962988[source]▶
You're doing nothing wrong. Even gemini users realise that inline images are good actually.
replies(1): >>45963321 #
1. cantalopes ◴[18 Nov 25 10:12 UTC] No.45963321[source]▶
Like "they are good". Whole html with its features is "good", but when i want to use a privacy- first protocol, why the hell would i undermine it with tracking pixels, especially since it noted as the very feature of this protocol
replies(2): >>45964916 #>>45966718 #
2. troupo ◴[18 Nov 25 12:43 UTC] No.45964916[source]▶
Ah yes. The main feature of images is tracking pixels. And not, you know, images.
3. voxic11 ◴[18 Nov 25 14:38 UTC] No.45966718[source]▶
There are plenty of ways to implement images without allowing for tracking pixels. Only allowing images to be served from first party domains would be a simple one.
replies(1): >>45974011 #
4. krapp ◴[19 Nov 25 00:05 UTC] No.45974011[source]▶
It would be noisy and would break the page size limit but you could also require that images be included inline as base64 encoded strings.
replies(1): >>45976382 #
5. ◴[19 Nov 25 06:09 UTC] No.45976382{3}[source]▶