The delayed websites include X’s online rivals Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky and Substack as well as Reuters and the New York Times, all of which Musk previously has singled out for ridicule or attack.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Either you didn’t read the article, you didn’t understand what you read, or you don’t understand what net neutrality means.
To your credit, the use of “throttles” in the headline is (likely intentionally) deceptive. It’s the wrong term entirely. What Xitter did was make their own servers wait ~5 seconds before serving an http redirect.
The principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of source and without favoring, blocking, or throttling particular products or websites.
Sounds exactly like he is disregarding net neutrality to me.
Edit: To be clear, proponents of net neutrality believe that all corporations, not just ISPs should follow net neutrality. It’s because of this exact situation that people want shit like this put into law.
Net neutrality is the concept of an open, equal internet for everyone, regardless of device, application or platform used and content consumed. You can argue semantics all day but twitter slowing traffic or redirects to certain other websites is a violation of net neutrality. If not the letter of the definition then for sure the spirit of it.
They’re violating the spirit of net neutrality, but not the law. Since they aren’t an ISP, they can’t actually slow down or block you from accessing certain websites. The most they can do is slow down (or block) their own URL redirection service when its used to access to those domains. That’s within their right of free speech, even if it’s really fucking petty.
Just concede and learn from your mistake, because you’re missing the point. Cloudflare throttles connections to sites as part of their DDoS protection, but that isn’t even remotely related to net neutrality. On your site, you can do whatever you want, but ISPs preventing customers from accessing certain sites (or accessing them as they would “normal” sites) is what net neutrality is concerned with.
He’s like the asshole bakers who won’t make the cake for the gay wedding. Or he’ll do it eventually but whine about it the entire time and it’ll arrive late and burnt.
It definitely draws direct parallels to net neutrality. It also shows the consolidation of web services into the hands of a few large corporations and the impact it has on the internet.
Im sure Twitter would argue that it’s not throttling, they don’t limit the speed in any way. But it does make it appear to end users as if the web site is loading slower.
It would be interesting if these sites could see a noticeable drop in traffic during the period Twitter was imposing delays on the redirect. If so, thats potential lost revenue and a basis for a lawsuit.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Either you didn’t read the article, you didn’t understand what you read, or you don’t understand what net neutrality means.
To your credit, the use of “throttles” in the headline is (likely intentionally) deceptive. It’s the wrong term entirely. What Xitter did was make their own servers wait ~5 seconds before serving an http redirect.
Sounds exactly like he is disregarding net neutrality to me.
Edit: To be clear, proponents of net neutrality believe that all corporations, not just ISPs should follow net neutrality. It’s because of this exact situation that people want shit like this put into law.
This is the key here, though. Twitter isn’t an ISP, they’re just making it more annoying when navigating from their site to elsewhere.
Which is hilarious. This will only hurt them.
People will just think Twitter is slow. Obviously Threads or NY Times will work normally when people are on those sites.
Net neutrality is the concept of an open, equal internet for everyone, regardless of device, application or platform used and content consumed. You can argue semantics all day but twitter slowing traffic or redirects to certain other websites is a violation of net neutrality. If not the letter of the definition then for sure the spirit of it.
They’re violating the spirit of net neutrality, but not the law. Since they aren’t an ISP, they can’t actually slow down or block you from accessing certain websites. The most they can do is slow down (or block) their own URL redirection service when its used to access to those domains. That’s within their right of free speech, even if it’s really fucking petty.
Just concede and learn from your mistake, because you’re missing the point. Cloudflare throttles connections to sites as part of their DDoS protection, but that isn’t even remotely related to net neutrality. On your site, you can do whatever you want, but ISPs preventing customers from accessing certain sites (or accessing them as they would “normal” sites) is what net neutrality is concerned with.
He’s like the asshole bakers who won’t make the cake for the gay wedding. Or he’ll do it eventually but whine about it the entire time and it’ll arrive late and burnt.
While still expecting to get paid.
That’s because you don’t know what an “internet service provider” is. Twitter is not one.
I know what ISP means. Read my edit.
It definitely draws direct parallels to net neutrality. It also shows the consolidation of web services into the hands of a few large corporations and the impact it has on the internet.
Im sure Twitter would argue that it’s not throttling, they don’t limit the speed in any way. But it does make it appear to end users as if the web site is loading slower.
It would be interesting if these sites could see a noticeable drop in traffic during the period Twitter was imposing delays on the redirect. If so, thats potential lost revenue and a basis for a lawsuit.