• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months 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
      ·
      9 months 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.