4 ms·
Are ads a net neutrality issue (and no one realizes)?
Ads eat your device's data. Net neutrality means "that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." But - if ads eat into people's limited data plan, doesn't that impact how they are able to access information?
I know that there are a variety of viewpoints on ads but hoping for the purposes of this discussion it can stay related to more of the consuming device data aspect.
- detaro 4y ago> "that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." How are ads something the ISP favors or blocks?
- ataylor0204 4y agoFrom the context that ads use your data without your consent and limits an individual data usage and therefore limiting access to sites
- wtallis 4y agoAds aren't generally pushed to your phone, they're requested by apps or web pages. You can choose to use browsers that support ad blockers and you can choose to avoid apps that use more data than you feel they deserve. If you choose to use apps that are wasteful of your data allotment, that's your problem, not the carrier's fault or responsibility.
- scarface74 4y agoYou chose to view the page.
- wmf 4y agoI see what you're saying, but OTOH even without ads you really have no idea how much data you're using. It's just hard to manage your data usage in general.
- ataylor0204 4y agoIn your settings on your phone you can click on Network & Internet, then click on Data Usage. However, there are have been studies literally showing that ads eat anywhere from 48% to 79% of people's data plans. It's hard to manage your data when your data is being used without you having any control over it.
- scarface74 4y agoDon’t go to websites festered with ads if that is your concern or install a web blocker.
- plaguepilled 4y agoYes I agree that ads affect accessibility via data restrictions. However, and this is from someone who is staunchly pro-subscription, anti-ads: its not the ad company's fault. Its the ISPs. ISPs not being public infrastructure is frankly wrong (hopefully for obvious reasons). It should be tax funded and essential websites should conform to low data traffic requirements to maximise accessibility (more than they already do and more broadly).
- scarface74 4y agoISPs being “taxpayer funded” also gives the government even more control of the internet. What happens when politicians are in control and pass laws about what should be on the internet?
- TrinaryWorksToo 4y agoAs opposed to private individuals who do the same and can't be voted out?
- scarface74 4y agoI can much easier leave a private company for another private company. Besides “voting people out” is not a great take - especially in the US. Because of both gerrymandering and the very form of the constitution, the US is very much rule by the minority. If you live in California, you are represented by the same number of Senators as someone who lives in Wyoming. The last thing I want is government to have more power.
- logicalmonster 4y agoIf the criteria used to determine net neutrality is "eating into people's limited data plan", then would you say that a poorly coded website (pretend it doesn't contain ads) that consumes 50MB of data where only 50 KB should suffice is actually a net neutrality violation?