6 ms·

It honestly doesn't matter. Nobody at the FCC is going to read these things - it's there because it has to be there, not because they intend on listening. They

It honestly doesn't matter. Nobody at the FCC is going to read these things - it's there because it has to be there, not because they intend on listening. They've set their agenda, now they're executing it. They have absolutely no plans on listening to anyone along the way. Nobody in this entire administration does.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Nobody at the FCC is going to read these things Yes, they will. And the final rule that is issued (and the almost inevitable dissent) will probably directly acknowledge them (though one side dismissively.)
ChuckMcM 9y ago
But it does matter, because it shows malice and intent. All three data points have to be taken together (FCC Opens up comments, Comments criminally spammed, FCC decides the issue X). Given the clear and convincing evidence of malfeasance in the comment stream, the FCC's actions can be judged as reasonable or unreasonable. So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  Shine a light for who to see?
  - PerryCox 9y ago
    Hopefully the EFF can challenge this in court and this provides good evidence that the FCC is ignoring what Americans want.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Ignoring what Americans want is almost the entire point of regulatory agencies like the FCC. They're a bureaucratic/technocratic check on the democratic process. (Which is why, in my opinion they're unconstitutional, but that's an argument for another day.)
      - Declanomous 9y ago
        That doesn't really explain the fact that a lot of agencies were created because of public outcry, such as the FDA. I think agencies exist because lawmakers don't really have the ability to move decisively when it is needed.
      - beaconstudios 9y ago
        isn't the constitution itself a check on the democratic process?
        rayiner 9y ago
        Many mechanisms in the constitution serve as checks on the democratic process. Adding checks in addition to those is unconstitutional: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060974.pdf http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060974.pd....
    - fjdlwlv 9y ago
      FCC's job is to make and enforce policy that conforms to the law set by Congress, not to hold and obey public votes.
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Yet, they are not allowed to ignore the public's comments. They must take them into consideration, even if they end up deciding to act against public opinion.
- notadoc 9y ago
  > So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies. And who is going to shine a line or report on that? The "fake news" media? Nobody will care, they don't want to hear it and they won't believe it, cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful.
  - ohazi 9y ago
    It's a long game. This administration will (eventually) turn over, and we need the new guys to be very clear about where the old guys fucked up.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      The fake news is also in favor of the "new guys".
  - ebbv 9y ago
    Cognitive dissonance is when you hold two opposing viewpoints at once. Like if you think killing animals for food is wrong but you love eating steaks and plan to continue doing so. It does not mean choosing to ignore reality or being willfully blind like you are using it here. I'm not sure how it has become popular to misuse it in that way over the last couple years, but it seems to be a thing.
    - et-al 9y ago
      I think notadoc meant to use the term "mental gymnastics". (I agree "cognitive dissonance" seems to be misused lately. That's how language evolves, unfortunately. And to add to your definition, it's the stress from with holding two opposing thoughts, hence the dissonance.)
      - RRWagner 9y ago
        How about "cognitive disconnect" as the better descriptive phrase?
- fjdlwlv 9y ago
  What does spam have to do with the FCC's decision making? Nothing. Comments are for submitting ideas. It was never supposed to be a popular vote.
acomjean 9y ago
This: I heard the NPR interview with Ajit Pai. Basically he had made his mind up. The writeup is very kind to him, the audio is a lot worse. Q: if public opinon would prefer to treat the internet like the internet like a utility would you vote the other way? Pai responded with Not really an answer saying they have to look at the evidence, but his answer was no. http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526916610/fcc-chief-net-neutrality-rules-treating-internet-as-utility-stifle-growth http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526... His solution to problems with ISPs is for consumers to complain to a regulatory agency. After taking away regulatory authority.
Glyptodon 9y ago
Even if the policy choices are foregone an investigation punishing those responsible for this identity theft seems merited.
- awalton 9y ago
  > punishing those responsible for this identity theft seems merited. Oh no, those pesky Russians got their hands on a public data breach dataset and are simply ripping through them and submitting the same comment over and over... Whelp, we better acquiesce to 'their' 'demands' and do exactly what we wanted to do in the first place. How convenient all of these robots were exactly aligned with our desires!
shawnee_ 9y ago
For the folks who aren't about to give up so easy, here's the reddit sub where people are brainstorming ways to "make" them listen. Again. I imagine it wil be something along the lines of another blackout or whatever a "march" on the Internet would look like. https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForNetNeutrality/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForNetNeutrality/
- rmccoy6435 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but what exactly is this subreddit accomplishing? It looks like just a bunch of articles about how the current FCC admin is bad, and fear-mongering photos of phones being completely blacked out and emojis on them. I don't like the removal of net neutrality rulings, but suggesting that place is a serious forum for bringing about change is a bit of a stretch. Good arguments to keep the rulings are going to do more than creating something like this: https://i.redd.it/c3esz8ok0izy.png https://i.redd.it/c3esz8ok0izy.png
- awalton 9y ago
  I'm not giving up, I'm stating the facts of the case. If you've actually got a concrete proposal on something that will actually shift the agenda of this agency, I'm 100% all ears. I suspect I'll be waiting a while though, since the FCC, like many of the commissions like it, were not created with the Russian coup like we're experiencing right now in mind. We can protest and gnash our teeth all we want, but very, very soon this is going to happen, and then very, very soon we're going to see companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast moving to marginalize our ability to communicate and use the services we want as we want, all the while maintaining they will "honor net neutrality". At that point, we can sue and start the lawsuit process... but they've got warchests tallying the billions of dollars, control and deep connections in the media to push their agenda, and lawyers enough to bury the suit for a decade and we've got... the EFF? It's the definition of a Goliath vs David battle, and it's not a swift battle to fight. Normally we'd turn to our representatives and senators to swat down stupidity, or failing that, sue early and hope the court system figures it out... but all of those solutions require a cooperative government which we are seeing is simply not going to be the case here. Silly enough, our government has the power to choose who sues them and whether the case can proceed - all they need to do is shop for the right venue. The government is currently only listening to companies who have written them fat checks to execute on their demands, and unfortunately the will of the American people is collateral damage. (Luckily for us, the Republicans aren't actually coordinated enough yet within their own party to really start dismantling this country, because right now they wield an unprecedented amount of power to push whatever agenda they please - if it's constitutional, they can do it, and we have next to no actual legal power to stop them, aside from an actual revolution. Perhaps the next set of people we put into power will right this incredible wrong and pass some laws or perhaps even a constitutional amendment giving the citizens of this country to override the will of the legislature or executive branch through a vote of no confidence or a recall election, or even just the ability for the citizens to pause non-essential Federal government policymaking during an active criminal investigation into the executive branch... but I'm not holding my breath on any of these happening in the next 3ish years.) Our best bet is that maybe in 2018 enough seats flip that maybe Congress can claw back some control and stem the madness until 2020 when we can hopefully restore sanity (you know, if we can prevent external countries meddling in our election again...) but we currently have no brakes to pump, and nobody in government representing the majority of the American people when they say they want strong net neutrality backed by Title II. Making a lot of noise isn't going to solve this problem alone. Either they need to actually be stripped of power, or us citizens need to find some actual power to wield against them. And like I said, I'm all ears on where we can get some power.
sailfast 9y ago
While it's easy to fall into this mindset I think it is important that we do not. Staying engaged is extremely important, and regulators (especially bipartisan commissions) will review these comments and incorporate them. If anything, the sheer number of dissenting comments is a metric that will be important to measure the popularity or lack thereof of any decision.
rcthompson 9y ago
Of course they've already decided what they're going to do, but even if there's no chance these public comments will stop them, it's still better if there's a record of fierce public opposition that they have to explain.
kome 9y ago
No, it's big deal, very dangerous AND it's a crime.
raarts 9y ago
This reluctant attitude is what allows them to win.
at-fates-hands 9y ago
Sounds just like the previous administration and the one before that. I wonder how bad it will get before this country finally realizes its going to take more than two parties to run this country well. People are getting sick of this shit.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Nobody at the FCC is going to read these things Yes, they will. And the final rule that is issued (and the almost inevitable dissent) will probably directly acknowledge them (though one side dismissively.)

ChuckMcM 9y ago

But it does matter, because it shows malice and intent. All three data points have to be taken together (FCC Opens up comments, Comments criminally spammed, FCC decides the issue X). Given the clear and convincing evidence of malfeasance in the comment stream, the FCC's actions can be judged as reasonable or unreasonable. So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies.

evanlivingston 9y ago
Shine a light for who to see?
- PerryCox 9y ago
  Hopefully the EFF can challenge this in court and this provides good evidence that the FCC is ignoring what Americans want.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Ignoring what Americans want is almost the entire point of regulatory agencies like the FCC. They're a bureaucratic/technocratic check on the democratic process. (Which is why, in my opinion they're unconstitutional, but that's an argument for another day.)
    - Declanomous 9y ago
      That doesn't really explain the fact that a lot of agencies were created because of public outcry, such as the FDA. I think agencies exist because lawmakers don't really have the ability to move decisively when it is needed.
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      isn't the constitution itself a check on the democratic process?
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Many mechanisms in the constitution serve as checks on the democratic process. Adding checks in addition to those is unconstitutional: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060974.pdf http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060974.pd....
  - fjdlwlv 9y ago
    FCC's job is to make and enforce policy that conforms to the law set by Congress, not to hold and obey public votes.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Yet, they are not allowed to ignore the public's comments. They must take them into consideration, even if they end up deciding to act against public opinion.
notadoc 9y ago
> So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies. And who is going to shine a line or report on that? The "fake news" media? Nobody will care, they don't want to hear it and they won't believe it, cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful.
- ohazi 9y ago
  It's a long game. This administration will (eventually) turn over, and we need the new guys to be very clear about where the old guys fucked up.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    The fake news is also in favor of the "new guys".
- ebbv 9y ago
  Cognitive dissonance is when you hold two opposing viewpoints at once. Like if you think killing animals for food is wrong but you love eating steaks and plan to continue doing so. It does not mean choosing to ignore reality or being willfully blind like you are using it here. I'm not sure how it has become popular to misuse it in that way over the last couple years, but it seems to be a thing.
  - et-al 9y ago
    I think notadoc meant to use the term "mental gymnastics". (I agree "cognitive dissonance" seems to be misused lately. That's how language evolves, unfortunately. And to add to your definition, it's the stress from with holding two opposing thoughts, hence the dissonance.)
    - RRWagner 9y ago
      How about "cognitive disconnect" as the better descriptive phrase?
fjdlwlv 9y ago
What does spam have to do with the FCC's decision making? Nothing. Comments are for submitting ideas. It was never supposed to be a popular vote.

acomjean 9y ago

This: I heard the NPR interview with Ajit Pai. Basically he had made his mind up. The writeup is very kind to him, the audio is a lot worse. Q: if public opinon would prefer to treat the internet like the internet like a utility would you vote the other way? Pai responded with Not really an answer saying they have to look at the evidence, but his answer was no. http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526916610/fcc-chief-net-neutrality-rules-treating-internet-as-utility-stifle-growth http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526... His solution to problems with ISPs is for consumers to complain to a regulatory agency. After taking away regulatory authority.

Glyptodon 9y ago

Even if the policy choices are foregone an investigation punishing those responsible for this identity theft seems merited.

awalton 9y ago
> punishing those responsible for this identity theft seems merited. Oh no, those pesky Russians got their hands on a public data breach dataset and are simply ripping through them and submitting the same comment over and over... Whelp, we better acquiesce to 'their' 'demands' and do exactly what we wanted to do in the first place. How convenient all of these robots were exactly aligned with our desires!

shawnee_ 9y ago

For the folks who aren't about to give up so easy, here's the reddit sub where people are brainstorming ways to "make" them listen. Again. I imagine it wil be something along the lines of another blackout or whatever a "march" on the Internet would look like. https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForNetNeutrality/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForNetNeutrality/

rmccoy6435 9y ago
I'm sorry, but what exactly is this subreddit accomplishing? It looks like just a bunch of articles about how the current FCC admin is bad, and fear-mongering photos of phones being completely blacked out and emojis on them. I don't like the removal of net neutrality rulings, but suggesting that place is a serious forum for bringing about change is a bit of a stretch. Good arguments to keep the rulings are going to do more than creating something like this: https://i.redd.it/c3esz8ok0izy.png https://i.redd.it/c3esz8ok0izy.png
awalton 9y ago
I'm not giving up, I'm stating the facts of the case. If you've actually got a concrete proposal on something that will actually shift the agenda of this agency, I'm 100% all ears. I suspect I'll be waiting a while though, since the FCC, like many of the commissions like it, were not created with the Russian coup like we're experiencing right now in mind. We can protest and gnash our teeth all we want, but very, very soon this is going to happen, and then very, very soon we're going to see companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast moving to marginalize our ability to communicate and use the services we want as we want, all the while maintaining they will "honor net neutrality". At that point, we can sue and start the lawsuit process... but they've got warchests tallying the billions of dollars, control and deep connections in the media to push their agenda, and lawyers enough to bury the suit for a decade and we've got... the EFF? It's the definition of a Goliath vs David battle, and it's not a swift battle to fight. Normally we'd turn to our representatives and senators to swat down stupidity, or failing that, sue early and hope the court system figures it out... but all of those solutions require a cooperative government which we are seeing is simply not going to be the case here. Silly enough, our government has the power to choose who sues them and whether the case can proceed - all they need to do is shop for the right venue. The government is currently only listening to companies who have written them fat checks to execute on their demands, and unfortunately the will of the American people is collateral damage. (Luckily for us, the Republicans aren't actually coordinated enough yet within their own party to really start dismantling this country, because right now they wield an unprecedented amount of power to push whatever agenda they please - if it's constitutional, they can do it, and we have next to no actual legal power to stop them, aside from an actual revolution. Perhaps the next set of people we put into power will right this incredible wrong and pass some laws or perhaps even a constitutional amendment giving the citizens of this country to override the will of the legislature or executive branch through a vote of no confidence or a recall election, or even just the ability for the citizens to pause non-essential Federal government policymaking during an active criminal investigation into the executive branch... but I'm not holding my breath on any of these happening in the next 3ish years.) Our best bet is that maybe in 2018 enough seats flip that maybe Congress can claw back some control and stem the madness until 2020 when we can hopefully restore sanity (you know, if we can prevent external countries meddling in our election again...) but we currently have no brakes to pump, and nobody in government representing the majority of the American people when they say they want strong net neutrality backed by Title II. Making a lot of noise isn't going to solve this problem alone. Either they need to actually be stripped of power, or us citizens need to find some actual power to wield against them. And like I said, I'm all ears on where we can get some power.

sailfast 9y ago

While it's easy to fall into this mindset I think it is important that we do not. Staying engaged is extremely important, and regulators (especially bipartisan commissions) will review these comments and incorporate them. If anything, the sheer number of dissenting comments is a metric that will be important to measure the popularity or lack thereof of any decision.

rcthompson 9y ago

Of course they've already decided what they're going to do, but even if there's no chance these public comments will stop them, it's still better if there's a record of fierce public opposition that they have to explain.

kome 9y ago

No, it's big deal, very dangerous AND it's a crime.

raarts 9y ago

This reluctant attitude is what allows them to win.

at-fates-hands 9y ago

Sounds just like the previous administration and the one before that. I wonder how bad it will get before this country finally realizes its going to take more than two parties to run this country well. People are getting sick of this shit.