5 ms·

So, it's weird. I was on reddit this morning, and there seemed to be a bit of astroturfing going on about this. The comments i replied to, which all claimed "t

So, it's weird. I was on reddit this morning, and there seemed to be a bit of astroturfing going on about this. The comments i replied to, which all claimed "this was a power grab by the fcc from the ftc" (which is ajit's talking points), are now deleted. In fact, every account i can find that said similar things is now deleted. https://www.reddit.com/user/danberlin/comments/ https://www.reddit.com/user/danberlin/comments/ (click on context for any of them). In any case, for the curious, here's the history here: The FTC historically did privacy for ISP's. FTC has no section 5 authority (IE to make those kinds of rules) for common carriers. It's specifically exempted by the FTC act, and has been for 90 years. This has been upheld in court. See https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-and-how-it-changes-common-carrier-regulation/ https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-... In June 2015, the FCC reclassified the ISP's as common carriers. Tada, the FTC rules no longer apply. So the FCC regulated them with roughly the same set of rules. Now they've undone this. Now the claim is "well, the FTC should be doing it, it was just a power grab by the FCC". But that's not really accurate. The power grab, if any, was reclassifying them as common carriers. Once that was done, they pretty much had to regulate them because the FTC can't. Because the FTC still doesn't have authority to regulate them, and they are still classed as common carriers, there is a void. Now, it may actually be better for the FTC to be regulating them. But it's definitely the case that, for the moment, no privacy rules will apply to them because the FTC can't regulate them until the FTC's common carrier exemption is repealed. See Maureen(an FTC commissioner)'s speech here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/893473/151204plispeech1.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements... Note, the speech is out of date a bit, because since then, the 9th circuit court ruled that the exemption is status based, not activity based, despite what the FTC wants.

fpgeek 10y ago
Makes me wonder if this is at least partially intended to create a reason to roll back common carrier status.
belltaco 10y ago
I'm a mod of that sub. Next time just send us a modmail so we can look into such behavior and hopefully tackle it.
jacquesm 10y ago
The same will happen here on HN at times. A whole bunch of inflammatory comments and then a few hours later all that remains are a few '.'s. Mission accomplished I guess.
unethical_ban 10y ago
This should be covered by NYTimes and the other news outlets. The lede is that this restriction was enforced by "the government" for a long time, and the FCC power grab argument is a non-starter. Internet browsing history is like one's library, phone and mail records all lumped into one. The Internet is a basic necessity in the developed world, and so it should be treated like a utility (common carrier) that they are. This is THE SAME THING as the USPS, your library branch, and your telephone carrier selling your transaction records for profit. It is dispicable.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  It's been covered fairly extensively by all the major news sources (Nytimes article here: https://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/23/us/politics/ap-us-congress-broadband-privacy-rules.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/23/us/politics/a...) but the Trump circus is just DDOSing all other news. If it weren't so likely to end with several of his staffers in jail, I'd think it was purposeful.
kibwen 10y ago
There may be attempted manipulation via flagging going on here as well: the story has 450 points over two hours and so should be glued to the top of the HN front page, yet it's only at seventh (and the comment count, at 288, is nowhere near the flamewar detection threshold).
- pera 10y ago
  Indeed, some people are flagging this entry, the question is: are they doing it because they are against political articles on HN, or, because they are part of some advocacy group trying to move this news from the top.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    There's another reason too: defense against cognitive dissonance. If it's one's "own team" that did something bad, and that person is unwilling to give up allegiance to their team, they will often act out in other ways to resolve the conflict. Especially since the partisan aspect of the issue is not headlined, the defenses will be similarly under the surface.
    - simula67 10y ago
      I flagged this story and comments like this is why. If you want to argue the pros and cons of a government policy, do so. Reading accusations of astroturfing etc is not intellectually gratifying.
      - __david__ 10y ago
        So… you flagged because of those kinds of comments, those comments are there because you flagged it. That's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
        DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
        Actually, it strikes me as more of a time-traveler's paradox.
smsm42 10y ago
I wish the original article contained any of this background instead of usual "they canceled the rules to protect your privacy and to defend you from hackers, because they are evil of course". I hate when they do that - replace actual content of the legislation being talked about with genetic description like "aimed to protect you from hackers". Clearly there's a controversy between whether this protection is appropriate or not. I expect from reporting to tell me what controversy is about and let me decide which side I like, not to shove a pre-manufactured opinion down my throat. I've read the article and I still have no idea what the actual disagreement is about. But at least from the comment above I now know the background of what's going on.
- markman 10y ago
  Exactly.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  > I expect from reporting to tell me what controversy is about and let me decide which side I like, not to shove a pre-manufactured opinion down my throat I've yet to identify a news website that (a) doesn't do this and (b) writes enough about topics I care about. I think we'll get back to quality reporting where we can rely on certain publishers, but we're not there yet. Simply put, the internet gave the world the opportunity to create too much noise and it's going to be awhile until the dust settles or the fog clears.
- dilap 10y ago
  For whatever reason, it seems like basically all media outlets these days are devoted to pushing a particular point of view rather than just providing background.
orthecreedence 10y ago
Millions of fake comments. Sad!
beedogs 10y ago
Reddit really needs to clean house in a huge way. That they let this kind of shit go on, in addition to allowing The_Donald and other hate groups to exist on their site, is really disheartening and has really turned me off to even visiting much anymore. The place is overrun by bots, paid astroturfers, and vile racists.
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  It was full of astroturfers, racists and pedophiles (ahem, I mean ephebophiles) 9 years ago. These subreddits and antics generate a nice profit.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
  I can see the case for banning bots and astroturfers. But I've seen the term "hate group" sometimes used to silence the expression of views that one finds disagreeable. In my estimation, what you're advocating is likely to cause more harm than good to the robustness of public debate.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  I find the_donald annoying and idiotic. But the anti-Trump front page material on reddit is equally annoying and idiotic. I don't mind political discussion or opinionated pieces if they're intelligent, open-minded, and at least intended to be productive (as opposed to outgrouping and other forms of villification). I'm not interested in 21st century "two minute hates".
DannyBee 10y ago
Just to followup, someone privately pointed out to me there appears to be at least some privacy protection afforded here by section 222 of the communications act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 I think it's important people get a fair view, regardless of whether i may be initially right or wrong, so thought it was worth mentioning. I have not delved into "what is the definition of a telecommunications carrier and do ISP's meet it" (or is there some other exception).

fpgeek 10y ago

Makes me wonder if this is at least partially intended to create a reason to roll back common carrier status.

belltaco 10y ago

I'm a mod of that sub. Next time just send us a modmail so we can look into such behavior and hopefully tackle it.

jacquesm 10y ago

The same will happen here on HN at times. A whole bunch of inflammatory comments and then a few hours later all that remains are a few '.'s. Mission accomplished I guess.

unethical_ban 10y ago

This should be covered by NYTimes and the other news outlets. The lede is that this restriction was enforced by "the government" for a long time, and the FCC power grab argument is a non-starter. Internet browsing history is like one's library, phone and mail records all lumped into one. The Internet is a basic necessity in the developed world, and so it should be treated like a utility (common carrier) that they are. This is THE SAME THING as the USPS, your library branch, and your telephone carrier selling your transaction records for profit. It is dispicable.

mikeyouse 10y ago
It's been covered fairly extensively by all the major news sources (Nytimes article here: https://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/23/us/politics/ap-us-congress-broadband-privacy-rules.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/23/us/politics/a...) but the Trump circus is just DDOSing all other news. If it weren't so likely to end with several of his staffers in jail, I'd think it was purposeful.

kibwen 10y ago

There may be attempted manipulation via flagging going on here as well: the story has 450 points over two hours and so should be glued to the top of the HN front page, yet it's only at seventh (and the comment count, at 288, is nowhere near the flamewar detection threshold).

pera 10y ago
Indeed, some people are flagging this entry, the question is: are they doing it because they are against political articles on HN, or, because they are part of some advocacy group trying to move this news from the top.
- epistasis 10y ago
  There's another reason too: defense against cognitive dissonance. If it's one's "own team" that did something bad, and that person is unwilling to give up allegiance to their team, they will often act out in other ways to resolve the conflict. Especially since the partisan aspect of the issue is not headlined, the defenses will be similarly under the surface.
  - simula67 10y ago
    I flagged this story and comments like this is why. If you want to argue the pros and cons of a government policy, do so. Reading accusations of astroturfing etc is not intellectually gratifying.
    - __david__ 10y ago
      So… you flagged because of those kinds of comments, those comments are there because you flagged it. That's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
      - DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
        Actually, it strikes me as more of a time-traveler's paradox.

smsm42 10y ago

I wish the original article contained any of this background instead of usual "they canceled the rules to protect your privacy and to defend you from hackers, because they are evil of course". I hate when they do that - replace actual content of the legislation being talked about with genetic description like "aimed to protect you from hackers". Clearly there's a controversy between whether this protection is appropriate or not. I expect from reporting to tell me what controversy is about and let me decide which side I like, not to shove a pre-manufactured opinion down my throat. I've read the article and I still have no idea what the actual disagreement is about. But at least from the comment above I now know the background of what's going on.

markman 10y ago
Exactly.
unityByFreedom 10y ago
> I expect from reporting to tell me what controversy is about and let me decide which side I like, not to shove a pre-manufactured opinion down my throat I've yet to identify a news website that (a) doesn't do this and (b) writes enough about topics I care about. I think we'll get back to quality reporting where we can rely on certain publishers, but we're not there yet. Simply put, the internet gave the world the opportunity to create too much noise and it's going to be awhile until the dust settles or the fog clears.
dilap 10y ago
For whatever reason, it seems like basically all media outlets these days are devoted to pushing a particular point of view rather than just providing background.

orthecreedence 10y ago

Millions of fake comments. Sad!

beedogs 10y ago

Reddit really needs to clean house in a huge way. That they let this kind of shit go on, in addition to allowing The_Donald and other hate groups to exist on their site, is really disheartening and has really turned me off to even visiting much anymore. The place is overrun by bots, paid astroturfers, and vile racists.

darpa_escapee 10y ago
It was full of astroturfers, racists and pedophiles (ahem, I mean ephebophiles) 9 years ago. These subreddits and antics generate a nice profit.
DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
I can see the case for banning bots and astroturfers. But I've seen the term "hate group" sometimes used to silence the expression of views that one finds disagreeable. In my estimation, what you're advocating is likely to cause more harm than good to the robustness of public debate.
humanrebar 10y ago
I find the_donald annoying and idiotic. But the anti-Trump front page material on reddit is equally annoying and idiotic. I don't mind political discussion or opinionated pieces if they're intelligent, open-minded, and at least intended to be productive (as opposed to outgrouping and other forms of villification). I'm not interested in 21st century "two minute hates".

DannyBee 10y ago

Just to followup, someone privately pointed out to me there appears to be at least some privacy protection afforded here by section 222 of the communications act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 I think it's important people get a fair view, regardless of whether i may be initially right or wrong, so thought it was worth mentioning. I have not delved into "what is the definition of a telecommunications carrier and do ISP's meet it" (or is there some other exception).