Loss of Net Neutrality Hits Home

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

After clearing my cookies and browser history as well as resetting my advertiser identifier in IOS, I was not able to visit Elitetrader.com and other non top 10 sites measured by traffic. However, Google loaded instantly. After google loaded, I opened another browser window, but still was not able to load Elitetrader.com and other non top 10 sites. Only after searching for Elitetrader on Google and clicking the link did Elitetrader load. I repeated the process of clearing my cookies, history, and advertiser ID and got the same issue. The wifi I was using at the time was City of Irving, TX Public Library.

 

[vanzandt]

After clearing my cookies and browser history as well as resetting my advertiser identifier in IOS, I was not able to visit Elitetrader.com and other non top 10 sites measured by traffic. However, Google loaded instantly. After google loaded, I opened another browser window, but still was not able to load Elitetrader.com and other non top 10 sites. Only after searching for Elitetrader on Google and clicking the link did Elitetrader load. I repeated the process of clearing my cookies, history, and advertiser ID and got the same issue. The wifi I was using at the time was City of Irving, TX Public Library.

Just a guess... but maybe its because the library uses some kind of 3rd party software that filters its wifi so you don't have people in there hanging out watching porno's. The service is probably is set up with a whitelist of many top (safe) sites, but those not on the whitelist must pass thru Google, which the software has set up to use Google's safe search, thereby depending on Google to do the work of filtering out undesirable sites. Its probably lower price software (budget constraints), whereas other public places with free wifi like SBUX, MCD, etc pay for a more aggressive software that updates its whitelists of safe sites real-time.

But like I said, that's just a guess. Sounds logical though. And yeah, net neutrality should be restricted in a place like a library. Who the f wants to go to a library with their kids or send them there alone if there's a bunch of dirty old men with laptops who can't afford a home ISP sitting around everywhere. I don't mean you of course, I'm just sayin' in general. Same reason libraries didn't put Hustler on their magazine racks back in the day. Some things are ok to spend tax dollars on.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Just a guess... but maybe its because the library uses some kind of 3rd party software that filters its wifi so you don't have people in there hanging out watching porno's. The service is probably is set up with a whitelist of many top (safe) sites, but those not on the whitelist must pass thru Google, which the software has set up to use Google's safe search, thereby depending on Google to do the work of filtering out undesirable sites. Its probably lower price software (budget constraints), whereas other public places with free wifi like SBUX, MCD, etc pay for a more aggressive software that updates its whitelists of safe sites real-time.

But like I said, that's just a guess. Sounds logical though. And yeah, net neutrality should be restricted in a place like a library. Who the f wants to go to a library with their kids or send them there alone if there's a bunch of dirty old men with laptops who can't afford a home ISP sitting around everywhere. I don't mean you of course, I'm just sayin' in general. Same reason libraries didn't put Hustler on their magazine racks back in the day. Some things are ok to spend tax dollars on.

Never thought of ET as porn, at least not the carnal kind.

The effect of Google running things has several impacts on advertisers, non advertisers, and the public.

Advertisers benefit through likely increased traffic. Advertisers are hurt when a regular site visitor is unable to open that website without first going through Google under a pay for click pricing scheme.

Non advertisers, such as small businesses, may be disproportionately adversely affected by the current scheme. One’s philosophy on this subject probably comes down on how one sees internet access and how they feel about the original purpose for creating the world wide web. It seems to me the status quo that was established at the inception of the internet is being changed for monetary and information control. Should Google be looked at as a utility or service provider? Google was granted certain privileges related to the internet for free or nearly for free, mainly because regulators did not know how valuable they were. This causes me to feel there is at least a social contract between Google and the public. To be fair, Google has provided good value add services. However, these services have been paid for through data mining and loss of privacy.

I don’t see how the public benefits by having content that is restricted in any way. Some of the best websites in the Universe, measured by useful content, do not come up on many non-specific Google searches. Instead, nowadays consumers are bombarded with the big advertisers and SEO (Search Engine Optimized) crap that often times are just a jumble of key words and a popup, not real content.

TV is dying for a reason. Too many commercials and declining or reused content. Although I am hesitant to ask the question: “Is the internet next”, the “internet experience” appears to have reached its peak and is on a downward path.

Books, anyone?

 

[vanzandt]

Never thought of ET as porn, at least not the carnal kind.

The effect of Google running things has several impacts on advertisers, non advertisers, and the public.

Advertisers benefit through likely increased traffic. Advertisers are hurt when a regular site visitor is unable to open that website without first going through Google under a pay for click pricing scheme.

Non advertisers, such as small businesses, may be disproportionately adversely affected by the current scheme. One’s philosophy on this subject probably comes down on how one sees internet access and how they feel about the original purpose for creating the world wide web. It seems to me the status quo that was established at the inception of the internet is being changed for monetary and information control. Should Google be looked at as a utility or service provider? Google was granted certain privileges related to the internet for free or nearly for free, mainly because regulators did not know how valuable they were. This causes me to feel there is at least a social contract between Google and the public. To be fair, Google has provided good value add services. However, these services have been paid for through data mining and loss of privacy.

I don’t see how the public benefits by having content that is restricted in any way. Some of the best websites in the Universe, measured by useful content, do not come up on many non-specific Google searches. Instead, nowadays consumers are bombarded with the big advertisers and SEO (Search Engine Optimized) crap that often times are just a jumble of key words and a popup, not real content.

TV is dying for a reason. Too many commercials and declining or reused content. Although I am hesitant to ask the question: “Is the internet next”, the “internet experience” appears to have reached its peak and is on a downward path.

Books, anyone?

That's what I was saying. Not that ET is porn obviously, but maybe ET isn't in their software's whitelist. Therefore the only way to gain access to an unknown site must be done via Google safe search. Again... just a guess. Who knows.

There's other search engines ya know. QWANT gets great reviews. Pure neutrality if you want unfiltered, unbiased results. https://about.qwant.com/