"Most ISP's can't be trusted, TOFU becomes essentially useless."

Why not just use HTTPS on the "untrustworthy" ISP's.

The use of the word "most" implies that there are some that can be trusted.

Assuming you are a trustorthy source for such information (and how do I know it's really you and not an "imposter"), then what are they. Please list the ISPs everyone can "trust".

The point that is being missed in this comment thread, and most others about TLS, HTTPS and CAs, is that there is a question of who decides whether something is "trustworthy" or not.

Personally I like to make these decisions for myself. Unlike an incredible number of internet commentators, I do not purport to tell anyone else who they should or should not trust. That decision is ultimately for each person to make on their own. We can provide information that may help a person with their decision, but it's still their decision, not mine.

But that's not how "chain of trust" works.

The concept of "chain of trust" itself does not even exist in the real world. It only exists in the imagination of socially inept persons hiding behind keyboards. In practice, for HTTPS, the cast of characters is a laundry list of third party intermediaries, all trying "cash in" on the use of the internet, a public resource we already pay ISP's to access. The idea that any of them would be sources of "trust" is comical.

Why trust "domain name registrars" as a source of useful information about people who run websites.

Why trust CAs issuing non-EV certificates. They only verify that someone rents a domain name from an "ICANN-approved" registry.

Why trust CAs issuing EV certificates. The people approving these CAs all have a vested interest in the web (browser) as a means of online advertising.

Why trust the people who "approve" CAs for inclusion in popular web browsers.

There are something like 75 CAs hardcoded into popular web browsers. If I want to remove one, what do I have to edit the source code and recompile. Inconvenient to say the least.

In all of this third party nonsense, there is no opportunity for an ordinary person, not invested in or benefitting from the "tech" company racket, to have any input on whether or not she wants to "trust" a website is being operated by a particular person. She is effectively locked out of the process. These third parties are often comprised of people I would never trust IRL. But they hide behind keyboards so we never get to see them for what they are.

At least with Gemini, clients and servers are smaller and simpler, and easy to edit and recompile. Gemini clients, written by anyone, not necesarily "tech" companies, are not designed with online advertising in mind. The protocol itself is not "advertising-friendly". It is little more than plain text.

The "threat model" for me in the majority of web use is the "business model" of so-called "tech" companies, i.e., surveillance, data collection and advertising, not "imposters". Nevermind that "tech" companies have pushed for a web that is 100% commercial/political, where even recreational use is monitored for insights useful to advertising. That only creates a greater incentive for "imposters". When I started using the internet it was still predominantly used for academic and military purposes.

If a "tech" company employee wants to choose to use HTTPS, DNSSEC, TOFU, etc., then that is their decision. But if they want to remove the ability of anyone else to make that decision for themselves, then I see a problem with that.