• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • yiliu@informis.land
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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