4 ms·

> With the reoccurring "net neutrality" debates, let's hope this protocol cannot be misused/used to prioritize certain packets for parties who pay extra FUD. T

by quonn 11y ago

> With the reoccurring "net neutrality" debates, let's hope this protocol cannot be misused/used to prioritize certain packets for parties who pay extra FUD. There is nothing like that in HTTP/2 and indeed that can't be, because packet routing happens several layers below. If anything, the fact that it's encrypted makes deep packet inspection and content-based routing decisions more difficult. By the way, Amazon.com fully supports HTTPS. I'm using a browser extension to enforce this whenever possible and have browsed Amazon HTTPS-only for years.

frik 11y ago
FUD is on your side. Check slide 37 and 38: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r7QXGYOLCh4fcUq0jDdDwKJWNqWK1o4xMtYpKZCJYjM/present?slide=id.gae999cde7_0_86 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r7QXGYOLCh4fcUq0jDdD... "With HTTP/2 browsers prioritize requests based on type/context, and immediately dispatch the request as soon as the resource is discovered. The priority is communicated to the server as weights + dependencies. [...] Responsibility is on the server to deliver the bytes in the right order!" With HTTP/2 a malicious website may send you the advertisement and tracking code first, then wait and later send you the actual content data. With HTTP/1 a browser plugin can decide to not download a advertisement related tracking JS file, simple and effective. Correct me if I am wrong or misunderstood HTTP/2 - but with constructive arguments and sources. Edit: I believe in ads sponsored websites. Ads about the topic of websites are great, though like many I dislike personalized invasive ads that follow me around websites about things I already bought anyway or never will. I would like an "fair"-AdBlocker that only blocks invasive ads and allow the good ads.
- frankchn 11y ago
  Well, any website today can have some JavaScript that verifies that ads and tracking cookies are loaded and executed before actual content loads. If the advertisement is not shown successfully, then the script can refuse to load the content too. I am also not sure how stream prioritization will affect Ghostery, AdBlock or other browser plugins. Is there any evidence that these plug-ins are not able to do things in HTTP/2 (e.g. blocking URLs, domains, preventing DOM elements from showing up, deleting cookies, etc...) that they could in HTTP/1? I would be interested to know.
- quonn 11y ago
  Yes, you have completely misunderstood this. HTTP/2 provides you with a mechanism to optimize traffic _within your own connection_. This is not at all related to the net neutrality debate where your ISP determines a priority _between different connections_. Furthermore, ad blockers currently work with blacklisted hostnames. Even with HTTP 1.1 the data could be sent from the main server, but usually it is sent from 3rd-party servers, which makes blocking easier. This is the same for HTTP/2 and completely unrelated.

by quonn 11y ago

frik 11y ago

FUD is on your side. Check slide 37 and 38: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r7QXGYOLCh4fcUq0jDdDwKJWNqWK1o4xMtYpKZCJYjM/present?slide=id.gae999cde7_0_86 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r7QXGYOLCh4fcUq0jDdD... "With HTTP/2 browsers prioritize requests based on type/context, and immediately dispatch the request as soon as the resource is discovered. The priority is communicated to the server as weights + dependencies. [...] Responsibility is on the server to deliver the bytes in the right order!" With HTTP/2 a malicious website may send you the advertisement and tracking code first, then wait and later send you the actual content data. With HTTP/1 a browser plugin can decide to not download a advertisement related tracking JS file, simple and effective. Correct me if I am wrong or misunderstood HTTP/2 - but with constructive arguments and sources. Edit: I believe in ads sponsored websites. Ads about the topic of websites are great, though like many I dislike personalized invasive ads that follow me around websites about things I already bought anyway or never will. I would like an "fair"-AdBlocker that only blocks invasive ads and allow the good ads.

frankchn 11y ago
Well, any website today can have some JavaScript that verifies that ads and tracking cookies are loaded and executed before actual content loads. If the advertisement is not shown successfully, then the script can refuse to load the content too. I am also not sure how stream prioritization will affect Ghostery, AdBlock or other browser plugins. Is there any evidence that these plug-ins are not able to do things in HTTP/2 (e.g. blocking URLs, domains, preventing DOM elements from showing up, deleting cookies, etc...) that they could in HTTP/1? I would be interested to know.
quonn 11y ago
Yes, you have completely misunderstood this. HTTP/2 provides you with a mechanism to optimize traffic _within your own connection_. This is not at all related to the net neutrality debate where your ISP determines a priority _between different connections_. Furthermore, ad blockers currently work with blacklisted hostnames. Even with HTTP 1.1 the data could be sent from the main server, but usually it is sent from 3rd-party servers, which makes blocking easier. This is the same for HTTP/2 and completely unrelated.