26 ms·

i mean if you want to redefine network neutrality you are welcome to do so. I'm not sure what the definition you are using is or where it comes from. i think y

• ucaetano 9y ago
  > if firefox shipped with a built-in default-on child filter would that be a net neutrality violation in your eyes? if it just slowed down adult content would it violate net neutrality? where even is the line here and is the line meaningful? I don't know (that's why I'm asking). On one side, you could argue that they are providing a service to users, on the other hand, they become a content gatekeeper if they do it by default. Chrome, for example, blocks suspicious sites, but that's a very clear line you're drawing. With ads and tracking, it becomes muddled. It would be similar to adult content in the UK, where AFAIK you have to proactively enable it through your ISP, it comes blocked by default.
  • brokensegue 9y ago
    ok then I suggest you go back and write a clearly usable definition before trying to apply that definition to "net neutrality." or else make up a new term it's hard enough to get the public to understand this concept without also waffling over the meaning in the tech community.