9 ms·

FCC has explicitly said that they have ignored any opinion comments. They have only considered comments which bring new facts or a legal opinion. So the fact th

FCC has explicitly said that they have ignored any opinion comments. They have only considered comments which bring new facts or a legal opinion. So the fact that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway.

viraptor 9y ago
I assume that would be the case, but looking from outside it's hard to know what did they actually look at. They could gain a lot more confidence from the public if they marked ignored comments as ignored. It would both avoid this discussion and allow people to read the actually interesting content that is going to influence the result.
neandrake 9y ago
Isn't is still fraud though? Submissions of opinions to a government agency under citizen's names without their consent or even knowledge -- it sounds illegal and not addressing this sorta thing now sets a crazy precedent.
jandrese 9y ago
Right. They outright said that they are only worried about getting into legal trouble for what they're doing. Protecting the public interest is no longer considered to be part of their mandate.
snuxoll 9y ago
Which would hopefully bite them in the ass if I had any faith in a Trump-appointed judicial branch. The FCC is required to take public comments into account when making regulations, this should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Absolutely not. This is not a vote.
- nikanj 9y ago
  And what are we going to do, if they don't? Seems like the main theme of this decade is "Yeah, so what?", on issues ranging from Panama Papers to net neutrality.
- will4274 9y ago
  The FCC is required to take the ideas and issues from public comments into account. When multiple comments raise the same issues or issues that were already considered in the initial policy recommendations, the FCC can ignore these comments without issue. Separating the comment policy from the net neutrality issue - the comment policy actually makes sense. Ideally, government officials should be acting as technocrats - considering all the arguments and choosing the best policy. A vocal minority pushing an argument that is bad should not be able to prevent or indefinitely delay sensible regulation. While this line of reasoning is frustrating for net neutrality advocates, it's easy to see why this is sensible w.r.t say vaccines. Regardless of how many anti-vaccination comments are sent, I want officials writing regulations that reflect the best solution w.r.t the scientific facts and the ethical concerns (both around government compulsion and the ability of a parent to hurt their child through neglect), not the solution that reflects the majority opinion of the small subset of people who submitted comments.
- indubitable 9y ago
  Taking comments into account is different than simply having an opt-in vote which translates to who's e-petition can go the most viral (and let's not even get into fraud). And this is very much a good thing. In this case, even if I might agree with having some issue with net neutrality being repealed - I think most people have no clue at all what's going on and are voting based on fear mongering and sensationalism. For instance, what percent of people could explain why Pai thinks repealing net neutrality is a good idea? Most seem to think he's just some Trump appointee selling out the highest bidder. In fact he's been arguing for a path of deregulation for years, even before he was appointed to the FCC by Obama 5 years ago. I tend to debate against the masses on this issue simply because I think we're acting like a mob instead of a rational collective. And even if we may be getting it right on this issue, mob mentality is something that should never be condoned - even if you side with them on an issue.
  - gbrown 9y ago
    > what percent of people could explain why Pai thinks repealing net neutrality is a good idea? Well, he says things like "increasing competition", and talks about "burdensome regulations", but I honestly don't believe he thinks repealing net neutrality will benefit consumers. I don't care who appointed him, to me he's an obvious, lying shill.
    - mrgordon 9y ago
      Agreed. See my comment next to yours also. The minority party appoints 2/5 of the FCC so Obama was just appointing Mitch McConnell’s pick (but being Obama he gets all the blame for it!)
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments by him. His most clear argument is that it will somehow increase investments into ISP infrastructure (citing, I think, what happened in Portugal) while he simultaneously says we have no way to know what effects repealing it will have until we try it. Meanwhile a million people have shared the images of the bucketed plans from Portugal charging $9.99 extra for social networking and things like that. The man is totally full of BS. As for your comment that he was an Obama appointee, he was actually selected by Mitch McConnell but I know it’s a common trope to blame everything on Obama. “Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather, there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners, since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican — Obama was sticking to that tradition.”
gech 9y ago
Just pretend its a decision that doesn't work with your views and then look again at why this campaign is problematic.
CydeWeys 9y ago
The government governs by the consent of its citizens. It is never acceptable for the government to ignore the opinions of its citizens, and anyone in government claiming otherwise should be removed. I utterly reject your claim that we should just acquiesce in the face of such malignancy.
- return0 9y ago
  The consent was given in the ballot box, No?
  - TehCorwiz 9y ago
    The FCC is appointed, not elected. And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 9y ago
      >And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes. There is no "popular election" in the American system. Consent is, and has always been, given by proxy through the electoral college, as defined in the US Constitution. If you want to invalidate Trump's authority because of that, you have to invalidate every election prior as well, and claim that the US government has never governed with the consent of the people. Mind you, I don't like Trump at all, but to imply that his authority is any less legitimate than prior Presidents would be specious, it's not his fault if the system that grants him power isn't designed to enforce popular will, it's the electorate's fault for not having changed it. Or, to quote the legal scholar Ice-T, don't hate the player, hate the game.
      - ModernMech 9y ago
        It is true the EC elected Trump, but the popular vote is often used to demonstrate a mandate based on the will of the people i.e. "The people have spoken and this is their decision." Well in November the people spoke and the man in the White House was not their decision. It was the decision of the electoral college. A system, btw, which was designed to give majority slave owning states a greater say in Presidential elections. We are not saying Donald Trump should not be President (for this reason), we are saying his agenda does not reflect the will of the people, and he certainly did not campaign on repealing net neutrality, so its hard to argue this issue was already decided by the voters. What he did campaign on was "drain the swamp". A Verizon crony working to dismantle consumer protections in favor of Verizon seems like exactly the opposite of that.
coldtea 9y ago
>So the fact that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway. First, what the FCC "explicitly said" and what they did is not necessarily the same. They are humans, and they could just as well be affected by opinion comments and their general tangent. Second, other (common) people read them, and developed a perception of general consensus and what others thing based of them. If those people read fake comments, that's of concern in itself. Third, the entity that did such a thing should be exposed, especially if its tied to some corporate player. What other foul means have they used, if they stooped to this?

viraptor 9y ago

I assume that would be the case, but looking from outside it's hard to know what did they actually look at. They could gain a lot more confidence from the public if they marked ignored comments as ignored. It would both avoid this discussion and allow people to read the actually interesting content that is going to influence the result.

neandrake 9y ago

Isn't is still fraud though? Submissions of opinions to a government agency under citizen's names without their consent or even knowledge -- it sounds illegal and not addressing this sorta thing now sets a crazy precedent.

jandrese 9y ago

Right. They outright said that they are only worried about getting into legal trouble for what they're doing. Protecting the public interest is no longer considered to be part of their mandate.

snuxoll 9y ago

Which would hopefully bite them in the ass if I had any faith in a Trump-appointed judicial branch. The FCC is required to take public comments into account when making regulations, this should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.

dingo_bat 9y ago
Absolutely not. This is not a vote.
nikanj 9y ago
And what are we going to do, if they don't? Seems like the main theme of this decade is "Yeah, so what?", on issues ranging from Panama Papers to net neutrality.
will4274 9y ago
The FCC is required to take the ideas and issues from public comments into account. When multiple comments raise the same issues or issues that were already considered in the initial policy recommendations, the FCC can ignore these comments without issue. Separating the comment policy from the net neutrality issue - the comment policy actually makes sense. Ideally, government officials should be acting as technocrats - considering all the arguments and choosing the best policy. A vocal minority pushing an argument that is bad should not be able to prevent or indefinitely delay sensible regulation. While this line of reasoning is frustrating for net neutrality advocates, it's easy to see why this is sensible w.r.t say vaccines. Regardless of how many anti-vaccination comments are sent, I want officials writing regulations that reflect the best solution w.r.t the scientific facts and the ethical concerns (both around government compulsion and the ability of a parent to hurt their child through neglect), not the solution that reflects the majority opinion of the small subset of people who submitted comments.
indubitable 9y ago
Taking comments into account is different than simply having an opt-in vote which translates to who's e-petition can go the most viral (and let's not even get into fraud). And this is very much a good thing. In this case, even if I might agree with having some issue with net neutrality being repealed - I think most people have no clue at all what's going on and are voting based on fear mongering and sensationalism. For instance, what percent of people could explain why Pai thinks repealing net neutrality is a good idea? Most seem to think he's just some Trump appointee selling out the highest bidder. In fact he's been arguing for a path of deregulation for years, even before he was appointed to the FCC by Obama 5 years ago. I tend to debate against the masses on this issue simply because I think we're acting like a mob instead of a rational collective. And even if we may be getting it right on this issue, mob mentality is something that should never be condoned - even if you side with them on an issue.
- gbrown 9y ago
  > what percent of people could explain why Pai thinks repealing net neutrality is a good idea? Well, he says things like "increasing competition", and talks about "burdensome regulations", but I honestly don't believe he thinks repealing net neutrality will benefit consumers. I don't care who appointed him, to me he's an obvious, lying shill.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    Agreed. See my comment next to yours also. The minority party appoints 2/5 of the FCC so Obama was just appointing Mitch McConnell’s pick (but being Obama he gets all the blame for it!)
- mrgordon 9y ago
  I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments by him. His most clear argument is that it will somehow increase investments into ISP infrastructure (citing, I think, what happened in Portugal) while he simultaneously says we have no way to know what effects repealing it will have until we try it. Meanwhile a million people have shared the images of the bucketed plans from Portugal charging $9.99 extra for social networking and things like that. The man is totally full of BS. As for your comment that he was an Obama appointee, he was actually selected by Mitch McConnell but I know it’s a common trope to blame everything on Obama. “Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather, there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners, since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican — Obama was sticking to that tradition.”

gech 9y ago

Just pretend its a decision that doesn't work with your views and then look again at why this campaign is problematic.

CydeWeys 9y ago

The government governs by the consent of its citizens. It is never acceptable for the government to ignore the opinions of its citizens, and anyone in government claiming otherwise should be removed. I utterly reject your claim that we should just acquiesce in the face of such malignancy.

return0 9y ago
The consent was given in the ballot box, No?
- TehCorwiz 9y ago
  The FCC is appointed, not elected. And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 9y ago
    >And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes. There is no "popular election" in the American system. Consent is, and has always been, given by proxy through the electoral college, as defined in the US Constitution. If you want to invalidate Trump's authority because of that, you have to invalidate every election prior as well, and claim that the US government has never governed with the consent of the people. Mind you, I don't like Trump at all, but to imply that his authority is any less legitimate than prior Presidents would be specious, it's not his fault if the system that grants him power isn't designed to enforce popular will, it's the electorate's fault for not having changed it. Or, to quote the legal scholar Ice-T, don't hate the player, hate the game.
    - ModernMech 9y ago
      It is true the EC elected Trump, but the popular vote is often used to demonstrate a mandate based on the will of the people i.e. "The people have spoken and this is their decision." Well in November the people spoke and the man in the White House was not their decision. It was the decision of the electoral college. A system, btw, which was designed to give majority slave owning states a greater say in Presidential elections. We are not saying Donald Trump should not be President (for this reason), we are saying his agenda does not reflect the will of the people, and he certainly did not campaign on repealing net neutrality, so its hard to argue this issue was already decided by the voters. What he did campaign on was "drain the swamp". A Verizon crony working to dismantle consumer protections in favor of Verizon seems like exactly the opposite of that.

coldtea 9y ago

>So the fact that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway. First, what the FCC "explicitly said" and what they did is not necessarily the same. They are humans, and they could just as well be affected by opinion comments and their general tangent. Second, other (common) people read them, and developed a perception of general consensus and what others thing based of them. If those people read fake comments, that's of concern in itself. Third, the entity that did such a thing should be exposed, especially if its tied to some corporate player. What other foul means have they used, if they stooped to this?