> network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please.
Not exactly, network neutrality can mean almost anything. The way it is discussed in the FCC regards ISPs, but you can expand it to anything.
> by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality.
No. And ad-blocker isn't any different from a child filter. It is a tool specifically designed to block certain content explicitly enabled by the user.
And to expand: by your logic, it would be ok then for Chrome to block all links to Firefox?
Or for Microsoft to block all links to other browsers?
> No, that wouldn't be OK. But not everything that is not OK is a network neutrality violation.
If you consider browsers an integral part of the internet infrastructure, it is. If not, it isn't. Happy to discuss naming, but it will mostly be useless.
But glad that you agree that Firefox preemptively delaying those sites is not OK.
> If you consider browsers an integral part of the internet infrastructure, it is. If not, it isn't.
No, it simply doesn't have anything to do with whether it is internet infrastructure. Prioritizing stuff according to the user's wishes/under the user's control without price discrimination is not a neutrality violation, even when network operators do it.
> But glad that you agree that Firefox preemptively delaying those sites is not OK.
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 your definition muddies the waters. 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?
> 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.
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.
it's not a third party when it's the same person that made the browser. it's the same second party whose software you opted to use. there's no net neutrality issue here.
by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality.