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!

  • @LeroyJenkins
    link
    English
    -16 months ago

    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

    • Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      06 months ago

      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.

      • @LeroyJenkins
        link
        English
        16 months ago

        bro just admit you got the definition wrong and stop with this please. idc if it should be. it’s not. by definition.

        • Snot Flickerman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • @LeroyJenkins
            link
            English
            0
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Snot Flickerman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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.

              • @LeroyJenkins
                link
                English
                06 months ago

                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.

                • Snot Flickerman
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  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.