▲ 1193 ▼ YouTube is deliberately crippling Firefox on ARM systems (social.treehouse.systems) submitted 2 years ago by whfsdude@dmv.social to c/technology@lemmy.world 199 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world -45 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zunon@lemmy.world 48 points 2 years ago (3 children) yes it does, net neutrality not only has to do with the ISP but also the services. different useragent string should NOT lead to a worse quality of service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago "feelings" bro permalink fedilink source parent [–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Right, but your service provider has nothing to do with that difference. The fact that the entity you're contacting on the other end of the connection is providing a degraded experience isn't an internet service delivery problem. Your internet service, which is what net neutrality is concerned with, is distinct from services on the internet. In the same way that your phone service has nothing to do with the quality of service you get from HP's telephone support line. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (4 children) The web is based on open standards; that’s what made it universally accessible. How does limiting access based on how you access the web benefit anyone? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago It doesn't, but that isn't their point. They're simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody is defending the practice, they're just differentiating it from what we've previously referred to as "net neutrality," which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic. Unless I missed the memo, and "net neutrality" means something different now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack. Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Where did I say it did? The fact that it's not a net neutrality issue doesn't mean it's not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn't this. permalink fedilink source parent [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago It doesn't, that's FTC / anticompetitive law territory permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* Hmmm, not sure why people are downvoting... Maybe these days people are using the term "net neutrality" in a broader sense to just mean equitable access, rather than the specific meaning that's been used in the past to refer to ISP behavior and giving preference based on how much is paid? permalink fedilink source parent [–] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, you might want to look at the Wikipedia article on Net Neutrality to see whether or not you are being schooled on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zunon@lemmy.world 48 points 2 years ago (3 children) yes it does, net neutrality not only has to do with the ISP but also the services. different useragent string should NOT lead to a worse quality of service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago "feelings" bro permalink fedilink source parent [–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Right, but your service provider has nothing to do with that difference. The fact that the entity you're contacting on the other end of the connection is providing a degraded experience isn't an internet service delivery problem. Your internet service, which is what net neutrality is concerned with, is distinct from services on the internet. In the same way that your phone service has nothing to do with the quality of service you get from HP's telephone support line. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (4 children) The web is based on open standards; that’s what made it universally accessible. How does limiting access based on how you access the web benefit anyone? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago It doesn't, but that isn't their point. They're simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody is defending the practice, they're just differentiating it from what we've previously referred to as "net neutrality," which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic. Unless I missed the memo, and "net neutrality" means something different now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack. Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Where did I say it did? The fact that it's not a net neutrality issue doesn't mean it's not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn't this. permalink fedilink source parent [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago It doesn't, that's FTC / anticompetitive law territory permalink fedilink source parent
[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago "feelings" bro permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Right, but your service provider has nothing to do with that difference. The fact that the entity you're contacting on the other end of the connection is providing a degraded experience isn't an internet service delivery problem. Your internet service, which is what net neutrality is concerned with, is distinct from services on the internet. In the same way that your phone service has nothing to do with the quality of service you get from HP's telephone support line. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (4 children) The web is based on open standards; that’s what made it universally accessible. How does limiting access based on how you access the web benefit anyone? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago It doesn't, but that isn't their point. They're simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody is defending the practice, they're just differentiating it from what we've previously referred to as "net neutrality," which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic. Unless I missed the memo, and "net neutrality" means something different now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack. Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Where did I say it did? The fact that it's not a net neutrality issue doesn't mean it's not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn't this. permalink fedilink source parent [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ag10n@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (4 children) The web is based on open standards; that’s what made it universally accessible. How does limiting access based on how you access the web benefit anyone? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago It doesn't, but that isn't their point. They're simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody is defending the practice, they're just differentiating it from what we've previously referred to as "net neutrality," which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic. Unless I missed the memo, and "net neutrality" means something different now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack. Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Where did I say it did? The fact that it's not a net neutrality issue doesn't mean it's not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn't this. permalink fedilink source parent [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago It doesn't, but that isn't their point. They're simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody is defending the practice, they're just differentiating it from what we've previously referred to as "net neutrality," which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic. Unless I missed the memo, and "net neutrality" means something different now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ag10n@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack. Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ag10n@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack. Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Where did I say it did? The fact that it's not a net neutrality issue doesn't mean it's not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn't this. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago It doesn't, that's FTC / anticompetitive law territory permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* Hmmm, not sure why people are downvoting... Maybe these days people are using the term "net neutrality" in a broader sense to just mean equitable access, rather than the specific meaning that's been used in the past to refer to ISP behavior and giving preference based on how much is paid? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, you might want to look at the Wikipedia article on Net Neutrality to see whether or not you are being schooled on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent