YouTube is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users
YouTube is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users
YouTube is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users::Users are reporting that YouTube has begun adding a five second delay when loading a video on non-Chrome browsers like Firefox. Read on!
The fact that its an oversight to not apply it to companies like Google if they are also choosing what traffic gets to people is an oversight, to be sure.
Google acts as an ISP in a different capacity, as well. Alphabet spun off lots of parts of the company, but last I checked, they're still technically an ISP. So why wouldn't rules apply to a business that is also literally an ISP with Google Fiber?
Google is not an ISP lol not when we're talking about YT
Google Fiber doesn't exist?
hit post too fast but we're talking YT here. this isn't going through their ISP. it literally does not count. if Google fiber added the slow lane, sure net neutrality problem.
also, it's not an "oversight". we're just literally not talking about net neutrality here and that's what I'm saying. this isn't a net neutrality problem lol
And up until a few months ago Net Neutrality was a dead issue in America, and could be again, because it isn't a law, it's an FCC rule. If people report this to the FCC, there's definitely a chance that they could look at this and amend NN rules to account for it. They can literally change it anytime they want.
bro just admit you got the definition wrong and stop with this please. idc if it should be. it's not. by definition.
Fine, I got it wrong. Happy? I still think its a fucking joke that it wouldn't apply in this instance, because it literally involves them degrading service for certain users over others.
yes, actually! its a positive thing when people can admit that. I was just getting frustrated that you were beating around the bush when you were wrong. look, I, too, believe in net neutrality and companies not being anti competive dick holes, but we gotta use the right words for things or else people start mixing issues up and it weakens the issue as a whole when people start confusing it with other things.
I disagree because language is imperfect and everyone has their own connotations for words and ideas, no matter what you do. You can't unmake that part of humanity, where certain words and ideas make us feel things. I think the focus on "words of the law" over "spirit of the law" is how America has turned into a fucking shithole by letting every scumfuck get away with stuff that's "within the letter of the law" because people stopped giving a fucking shit about the "spirit of the law." In some countries, they don't go by specific wording, but do go with the spirit of the law. That matters. Also, let's not even get into how language evolves and the idea that it is in any way static is a real big joke.
So good that you're happy, and I think the focus on "the right words" is absurd. We're literally facing rising fascism from people who abuse words.
EDIT: Amazon gained its market position because monopoly law doesn't account for a business that builds its monopoly through not making a profit for nearly 15 years. Amazon is now even bigger than Walmart when it comes to sales, and absolutely dominates the market, but because the letter of the law didn't expect a company to run on growth and losing money until it was large enough to dominate, nothing was done until they were already in a monopoly position. Using "clear words" left a gaping fucking hole for that shit to happen.
okay, but we're talking about net neutrality and how you got it wrong. it's not about how strict I'm interpreting things or not. there's no ambiguity in the definition here. you are NOT talking about net neutrality. it indeed does matter whether or not you're using the right words here because you're using them wrong. you can't say apple is an orange, then when people say it's not the same, you can't say: well... it's in the spirit of an apple because it's a fruit. we're not talking linguistics here either. you're continuing to beat around the bush. you're using some no true Scottsman fallacy here. you can't say the true definition of something should include something that's not in the definition just because you're wrong. that's not an argument.
I already agreed that I made a mistake.
You made a new argument about the use of words, I refuted it, not in relation to the original argument. I apologize if I was not clear on that.
