3 ms·

I'm not sure what article you read, but this change in Firefox is simply a change in the timing of requests to certain domains that are known to be for tracking

by Rudism 9y ago

I'm not sure what article you read, but this change in Firefox is simply a change in the timing of requests to certain domains that are known to be for tracking/analytics in an attempt to improve the load time of websites. If anything this move is anti-Net Neutrality since it's prioritizing non-tracking domains over tracking domains as opposed to treating all domains equally.

rotrux 9y ago
A good point, although I read the article that this comment-chain is geared towards. Be more forthright with your condescension please ^_^. The article was put out by mozilla, so of course their stated point is to make everyone's experience better. I'm in marketing, so I tend to ignore a good portion of the text in marketing/PR-blogs such as this one. Aside from that, I hadn't thought of this. You're right that if anything, this will increase the load-times of companies who rely on advertising revenue. Perhaps it's preparation?
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  > You're right that if anything, this will increase the load-times of companies who rely on advertising revenue. Perhaps it's preparation? The _intention_, if we believe the statement (I understand you may not) is actually the opposite of this. To _improve_ perceived load times (time to display/interactability) of sites that use lots and lots of tracking scripts. If a site does not use many or any tracking scripts, it actually won't effect it at all. There are sites that use lots and lots of tracking scripts, and it actually slows down UI. The intent of this change is to _speed it up_ again. If it doesn't do that, and instead makes lots of sites load more slowly to the user's perception, it will not have been succesful at it's claimed goal.
  - rotrux 9y ago
    Well! After re-reading, you've convinced me that I misunderstood the mechanics of their change. Thank you! Hopefully HN can forgive me for learning ^_^.
chowells 9y ago
It cannot possibly be anti-net-neutrality, because it is an action being taken by the user agent, not a transport.
- rotrux 9y ago
  @Rudism actually convinced me you're correct (in spirit) unless there is some other portion of information we're missing. However a client-application is not the same thing as a user-agent. Just because their software is on my laptop does not mean I'm in control...What makes you think client-side requests preclude this being about net-neutrality? Latency is additive...regardless of what layer we're talking about. increases in transport latency can be compensated for at the physical or application layer...time is time, the OSI model isn't involved.

by Rudism 9y ago

rotrux 9y ago

A good point, although I read the article that this comment-chain is geared towards. Be more forthright with your condescension please ^_^. The article was put out by mozilla, so of course their stated point is to make everyone's experience better. I'm in marketing, so I tend to ignore a good portion of the text in marketing/PR-blogs such as this one. Aside from that, I hadn't thought of this. You're right that if anything, this will increase the load-times of companies who rely on advertising revenue. Perhaps it's preparation?

jrochkind1 9y ago
> You're right that if anything, this will increase the load-times of companies who rely on advertising revenue. Perhaps it's preparation? The _intention_, if we believe the statement (I understand you may not) is actually the opposite of this. To _improve_ perceived load times (time to display/interactability) of sites that use lots and lots of tracking scripts. If a site does not use many or any tracking scripts, it actually won't effect it at all. There are sites that use lots and lots of tracking scripts, and it actually slows down UI. The intent of this change is to _speed it up_ again. If it doesn't do that, and instead makes lots of sites load more slowly to the user's perception, it will not have been succesful at it's claimed goal.
- rotrux 9y ago
  Well! After re-reading, you've convinced me that I misunderstood the mechanics of their change. Thank you! Hopefully HN can forgive me for learning ^_^.

chowells 9y ago

It cannot possibly be anti-net-neutrality, because it is an action being taken by the user agent, not a transport.

rotrux 9y ago
@Rudism actually convinced me you're correct (in spirit) unless there is some other portion of information we're missing. However a client-application is not the same thing as a user-agent. Just because their software is on my laptop does not mean I'm in control...What makes you think client-side requests preclude this being about net-neutrality? Latency is additive...regardless of what layer we're talking about. increases in transport latency can be compensated for at the physical or application layer...time is time, the OSI model isn't involved.