this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
1274 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

60081 readers
3524 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cagi@lemmy.ca 165 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Remember when every billionaire apologist was telling us how no one would do shit like this when net neutrality was being gutted?

[–] yiliu@informis.land 101 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Google is not an ISP. With or without net neutrality, Google could fuck with YouTube users.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago

Technically false. Google is an ISP. But they aren't using their position as an ISP to slow down traffic or fast track other traffic in this instance so no it has nothing to do with net neutrality.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only if we narrow our scope to the commonly thought of types of net neutrality. I think if we had foreseen intentionally treating browsers differently, this type of thing would have 100% been rolled into that original conversation about net neutrality. It's the same idea: artificially modifying a web experience for capitalist gain.

I personally wish it could be illegal for them to do this, but I do think it would be really hard to enforce such a law.

[–] yiliu@informis.land 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Illegal to do...what? Not offer high-res videos? To have any delay before streaming videos? To refuse to serve you videos, even if doing so caused them to lose money? How would you enforce that on Google, much less on smaller startups? Would it apply to PeerTube instances?

Google sucks for doing this. It'll drive people to competitors--hopefully even federated competitors. But laws to 'fix' the problem would be nearly impossible to craft--and would be counterproductive in the long term, because they'd cement the status quo. Let Google suck, so that people switch away from it.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Discriminate against browsers.

And I did write that it would be too hard to enforce. I'm a software developer so I understand that it's more complicated than it sounds.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, but they aren’t really discriminating against browsers at all. As far as I understand it, they pretty much have an

if (!adPageElement.isLoaded)
{
    showStupidPopup();
}

in there somewhere. It doesn’t rely on any nefarious browser implementation-specific extensions; everyone gets that same code and runs it. As for the 5 seconds thing, IIRC some FF configurations were triggering false positives, but I think it was patched. It does seem awfully convenient, and maybe they only patched it because they got caught, but they also must have been morons to think something that obvious wouldn’t be noticed immediately.

[–] yiliu@informis.land 1 points 1 year ago

I think they claimed they're not discriminating against browsers, they're just better at identifying adblockers on Firefox or something.

[–] applebusch@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google is literally an ISP. They provide my internet service.

[–] yiliu@informis.land 3 points 1 year ago

Well, fair. But even in that case, they have every right to degrade your YouTube experience, as owners of YouTube. As ISP (I mean, assuming NN was still a thing) they couldn't selectively degrade traffic, but YouTube has no obligation to you under net neutrality.

[–] C126@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not just YouTube. Now I have to say I'm not a robot when searching from my phone because I dare use a VPN that's not theirs.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I still remember Ajit Pai's dumbass teeth as he smugly insisted that you'll still be able to "'gram' your food" before covering a Chipotle bowl in a mountain of flaming hot Cheetos and an ocean of Sriracha. And that was one of the least irritating moments of that video. That whole fucking video was basically "you can still waste time with your bread, circuses, and creature comforts, you fucking peasants, now shut up and let the corporations do their thing" while ignoring every legitimate criticism of the decision to gut NN.