• @elscallr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -101 year ago

    This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Either you didn’t read the article, you didn’t understand what you read, or you don’t understand what net neutrality means.

    To your credit, the use of “throttles” in the headline is (likely intentionally) deceptive. It’s the wrong term entirely. What Xitter did was make their own servers wait ~5 seconds before serving an http redirect.

    • teft
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Net Neutrality.

      The principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of source and without favoring, blocking, or throttling particular products or websites.

      Sounds exactly like he is disregarding net neutrality to me.

      Edit: To be clear, proponents of net neutrality believe that all corporations, not just ISPs should follow net neutrality. It’s because of this exact situation that people want shit like this put into law.

      • @Cubes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        internet service providers

        This is the key here, though. Twitter isn’t an ISP, they’re just making it more annoying when navigating from their site to elsewhere.

        • @KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          Which is hilarious. This will only hurt them.

          People will just think Twitter is slow. Obviously Threads or NY Times will work normally when people are on those sites.

        • teft
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Net neutrality is the concept of an open, equal internet for everyone, regardless of device, application or platform used and content consumed. You can argue semantics all day but twitter slowing traffic or redirects to certain other websites is a violation of net neutrality. If not the letter of the definition then for sure the spirit of it.

          • @Ajen@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            101 year ago

            They’re violating the spirit of net neutrality, but not the law. Since they aren’t an ISP, they can’t actually slow down or block you from accessing certain websites. The most they can do is slow down (or block) their own URL redirection service when its used to access to those domains. That’s within their right of free speech, even if it’s really fucking petty.

          • @SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -31 year ago

            Just concede and learn from your mistake, because you’re missing the point. Cloudflare throttles connections to sites as part of their DDoS protection, but that isn’t even remotely related to net neutrality. On your site, you can do whatever you want, but ISPs preventing customers from accessing certain sites (or accessing them as they would “normal” sites) is what net neutrality is concerned with.

      • @PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        He’s like the asshole bakers who won’t make the cake for the gay wedding. Or he’ll do it eventually but whine about it the entire time and it’ll arrive late and burnt.

        • @elscallr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I’ve got no problem baking anyone a cake, but you’re right it’ll be late and burnt. I can’t bake for shit.

          But your assumption that I wouldn’t force anyone to bake that cake, you’re absolutely right.

        • teft
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          I know what ISP means. Read my edit.

          • @elscallr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Twitter isn’t, and shouldn’t be under any obligation to respond to you proxying your requests through their url tracker with any service level.

            Is it unethical? Yeah. Does it violate the letter of proposed NN laws? No. Does it violate the spirit of proposed NN laws? Also no. Those laws don’t cover what happens while a request is inside a parties network, only the traffic that travels in and out of it, of which Twitter was manipulating neither.

            Well, I suppose they could deliver a few packets with a couple microseconds of latency when they delivered the HTTP response payload but they would have to literally modify their OS’s TCP stack to do so and the entirety of that actual throttling would be literally milliseconds of difference.

    • @brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      It definitely draws direct parallels to net neutrality. It also shows the consolidation of web services into the hands of a few large corporations and the impact it has on the internet.

      Im sure Twitter would argue that it’s not throttling, they don’t limit the speed in any way. But it does make it appear to end users as if the web site is loading slower.

      It would be interesting if these sites could see a noticeable drop in traffic during the period Twitter was imposing delays on the redirect. If so, thats potential lost revenue and a basis for a lawsuit.