4 ms·

It is not literally analogous, but then you favor an argument about semantics over the actual argument at hand. People tend to default naturally to what requir

It is not literally analogous, but then you favor an argument about semantics over the actual argument at hand. People tend to default naturally to what requires the least effort to work; - This feature is default on their browser. - Other browsers are disliked or simply not used on IPhones for the big majority off users. - Their browser is realistically thus the main gate way used by people with Iphones to access the internet, aside from the social media apps. - At this early layer between people and the internet, Apple wants to place a machine learning algorithm, that decides which data is let through and which isn't. I am not sure about if I want them to have that position off power at all so closely to what is for many their main and potentially only access point to the internet.

mikeash 9y ago
Net neutrality is about the ISPs. That's how it's defined (semantics!) and that's what I think it should be. If you want to discuss the ramifications of browser features for the net, by all means do so, but don't try to paint my approval of both net neutrality and this Apple feature as somehow being inconsistent or indicating that I don't understand what's going on.
- xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago
  But this entire thread surely stems from 'ramifications of browser features (by Apple) for the net', and not about the english literature, and certainly nothing personal towards you. This is at least not my intent. If you disagree, could you point to any reply which contains your arguments or views on the actual topic within your previous posting towards my comment?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Yes, the topic at hand is the ramifications of Apple's feature. The topic is not net neutrality. You brought that into the discussion and basically accused anyone who is in favor of both net neutrality and Apple's feature of being ignorant. You said "nothing personal, but how else am I to take "If you are in favor off this update, but against for example net neutrality, then you might want to check up again on how well you understand these concepts"? That, to me, means that if I hold these two positions (and I do) then I am not only wrong in your view, but that I don't even understand the topic.

mikeash 9y ago

Net neutrality is about the ISPs. That's how it's defined (semantics!) and that's what I think it should be. If you want to discuss the ramifications of browser features for the net, by all means do so, but don't try to paint my approval of both net neutrality and this Apple feature as somehow being inconsistent or indicating that I don't understand what's going on.

xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago
But this entire thread surely stems from 'ramifications of browser features (by Apple) for the net', and not about the english literature, and certainly nothing personal towards you. This is at least not my intent. If you disagree, could you point to any reply which contains your arguments or views on the actual topic within your previous posting towards my comment?
- mikeash 9y ago
  Yes, the topic at hand is the ramifications of Apple's feature. The topic is not net neutrality. You brought that into the discussion and basically accused anyone who is in favor of both net neutrality and Apple's feature of being ignorant. You said "nothing personal, but how else am I to take "If you are in favor off this update, but against for example net neutrality, then you might want to check up again on how well you understand these concepts"? That, to me, means that if I hold these two positions (and I do) then I am not only wrong in your view, but that I don't even understand the topic.