How can it possibly be, that an ISP, which I’m paying for gets to decid, which sites I’m allowed to have access to, and which not?

All the torrenting sites are restricted. I know, I can use VPN, and such… but I want to do it because of my privacy concerns and not because of some higher-up decided to bend over for the lobbying industry.

While on the other hand, if there’s a data breach of a legit big-corp website (looking at you FB), I’m still able to access it, they get fined with a fraction of their revenue, and I’m still left empty-handed. What a hipocracy!!

What comes next? Are they gonna restrict me from using lemmy too, bc some lobbyist doesn’t like the fact that it’s a decentralized system which they have no control over?

Rant, over!

    • yukichigai@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Holy hell that sounds cursed. How obnoxious are they? Can you share a screenshot?

      Next time I’m cursing Spectrum I’ll remind myself that they aren’t doing that at least.

        • yukichigai@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As your typical American I can only read English, what do those “news” ads say, roughly? Tinfoil hat nuttery? Increase your Pen-One-Five size?

          Either way that’s still pretty bad. And there are video popups? Jeez. I’m guessing you either don’t have much choice in ISPs or the other options are even worse somehow. My sympathies. Also thanks for sharing.

          • corrupts_absolutely@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            i have an ad blocker on my desktop so i never see them. as far as i know the adverts are particular to this isp and the others dont do that, but all of them block more or less the same amount of websites. this is actually one of the largest providers in the country too.
            in terms of content of those ads they are largely the government line about the ukraine conflict and some other affairs. i dont think ive seen the typical 2010s pop culture bait ads. the videos tend to be some store advertisements like leroy merlin.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Before Wikipedia default to https, I remember being surprised seeing ads in a Wikipedia page. I was so disappointed that Wikipedia has stoop so low before eventually realizing my cursed ISP was the real culprit.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Shenanigan like this was one of the main driving force to push website operators to use https by default. The other driving forces are the computational cost of serving https got significantly cheaper thanks to modern CPU with accelerated cryptography instructions support, and letsencrypt providing free TLS certificate to everyone.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Never saw it on a website but back when I just plugged things in and used it the one at the time liked to swipe bad DNS requests and use it to push an ad page rather than a name not resolved.

      • yukichigai@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        OpenDNS used to do that. Caused a lot of unexpected problems, enough that I stopped using it entirely. I’m still hesitant to even though they’ve stopped doing it.