41–50 of 201 posts
The problem is, most people don't realize that, all things considered, their internet really isn't as fast as it could be. They think it is because they have no basis for comparison. And the ISP's bank on this... literally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. I do like this idea. However, as one of the minority of people who have disabled js by default, I'd hope this could be done in a way that doesn't break websites.
I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system…
- Poorly written JavaScript that causes my system to stall for a time, to the point where I have to kill all my browser's processes manually; more common than you'd think.
- Websites that attempt to mine cryptocurrencies using my browser with JavaScript; without my knowledge or permission.
- Then there's XSS and CSRF vulnerabilities that can leverage JavaScript to hijack active sessions.
And I am probably forgetting a few more reasons..
I do enable JavaScript for specific trusted websites, and I make temporary exceptions every now and then if necessary. But, I usually try to keep the list of exceptions short.
In regards to needing JavaScript for styling / design purposes.. Are you sure you need it? It might take you a bit longer to tweak and restructure the HTML and CSS to accomplish your design without JS, but it's well worth it.
Much more effective would be for operators to ban ISPs. Imagine the internet telling specific users that they have to get off comcast or whatever in order to use their service for a particular day out of every month. Do it maddox style with a nice middle finger. Make users want to switch instead of just pretend like there's no alternatives.
I take this to mean that you're setting up your own ISP which is going to service my area and provide better rates, faster connections, and better service than Comcast, so that I have an alternative for internet? That's great, I'm really excited to hear that! Let me know what number I can call to sign up!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. I do like this idea. However, as one of the minority of people who have disabled js by default, I'd hope this could be done in a way that doesn't break websites.
I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system…
This would be great and informative and effective, except that the most visible sites* have no incentive to play along with this little song and dance, as they are the ones proliferating anti-net-neutrality for their own private gain. So it will basically just look to people like I'm running a shitty technical job serving my site, most people will think I'm stupid, they won't learn a damn thing about net neutrality o…
Netflix is "proliferating anti-net-neutrality"? They seem to be actively and publicly pushing for net neutrality.
Why stop at the slow lane? There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access. Slowness is just the beginning -- the end-goal is making the internet into multiple competing walled gardens where users are treated as silos that require permission to access. The global reach of the internet is at risk here. Imagine if Netflix wasn't accessible to Comcast users from the beginning because they…
In fact, it took 4 months to resolve a dispute between DirecTV and the Weather Channel [0], which affected 20 Million people. There was some outrage, but not enough to for DirecTV to relent. Instead, the content provider was forced to change [1].
There are lessons to be learned here for other content providers, like Netflix. My worry is that the gatekeepers still hold too much power and are strong arming content providers, using consumers as pawns.
[0] http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-c... [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/04/08/weather-cha...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. I do like this idea. However, as one of the minority of people who have disabled js by default, I'd hope this could be done in a way that doesn't break websites.
I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system…
When I asked why they disabled JavaScript, it was rare to get any sort of coherent answer. Usually they would just mumble about viruses, or occasionally about privacy, but every single one of them cited "a friend" as the original source of whatever reason they had.
So my theory is that most people disable JavaScript "just because". Reminds me a bit of the five monkeys and a ladder experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Much more effective would be for operators to ban ISPs. I heartily disagree with this approach. Not only does it harken back to the days of Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe and the like where each service had its own content, but it's very anti-internet. >Make users want to switch That's great if there are alternatives to switch to. Yes, I could technically switch to dialup. It is technically internet. It's not going to all…
> I heartily disagree with this approach. Not only does it harken back to the days of Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe and the like where each service had its own content, but it's very anti-internet. Anti-internet to ban an ISP that is trying to decimate the internet? How does that logically make any sense?
What would we end up with? Most of the internet not working for anybody. Friends sending you links that you can't get to because you're on different ISPs. Needing to buy service at more than one ISP to "provide coverage". If it happened on a large enough scale, it would unravel what we know as the internet.
This is what I mean when I say it's a bad idea.
Why stop at the slow lane? There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access. Slowness is just the beginning -- the end-goal is making the internet into multiple competing walled gardens where users are treated as silos that require permission to access. The global reach of the internet is at risk here. Imagine if Netflix wasn't accessible to Comcast users from the beginning because they…
That would be politically trickier to pull off. It's much easier to say, "We're not censoring anything - we're just not giving them 'premium' speed.", and then redefine the status quo as the new 'premium'[0]. For Netflix, it doesn't matter - having the equivalent of dial-up speed is essentially the same as being blocked entirely, since their service depends on reasonably fast download speed. To illustrate another sce…