5 ms·

It was incredibly obvious to anyone paying attention that they were manipulated. 2.8 million comments were identical and were from a pro-net neutrality site cal

by ikeboy 8y ago

It was incredibly obvious to anyone paying attention that they were manipulated. 2.8 million comments were identical and were from a pro-net neutrality site called "Battle for the Net". That's not organic. Do you think he should have blocked comments from there? Or what, specific, actions should he have taken?

imgabe 8y ago
> 2.8 million comments were identical and were from a pro-net neutrality site called "Battle for the Net". That's not organic. Lots of advocacy groups offered a form for users to submit comments with a pre-filled comment field in support of net neutrality. I used one myself. The fact that the text is the same does not necessarily imply the comment is fake. There are many other comments where the person who supposedly submitted the comment says that they didn't. That would be a fake comment. > Or what, specific, actions should he have taken? I don't know, how about something besides "not a damn thing"? How about tracking down the source of the fake comments and fining or otherwise holding them accountable if it's within his jurisdiction to do so, or turning them over to the appropriate authorities if not? How about cancelling the comment period due to the rampant fraud, implementing some measures to verify user and re-opening comments to try to get something accurate? How about giving the tiniest shit about the public he's supposed to be serving? Is that too much ask?
- ikeboy 8y ago
  You seem to be operating under a severe misunderstanding of the point of the public comment system. It is not to figure out whether or not the public supports a particular action. Polls are much better at that particular goal. Rather, the purpose is to surface relevant arguments so the committee can consider those arguments in their decisions.
  - imgabe 8y ago
    > Rather, the purpose is to surface relevant arguments so the committee can consider those arguments in their decisions. And would you say that having one side flood the system with millions of fraudulent comments is conducive to this purpose? Before you object, yes it was overwhelmingly one side. FTA of the 14 organizations being investigated, 11 were anti-NN and only 3 are pro. If what you say were true, all they should have had to do was submit their one comment with their best argument against net neutrality so that the committee could consider it. Surely their sound argument would be enough to win the day, right? But that's not what they did, is it? Instead of submitting one argument, they tried to overload the system. It's almost as if they wanted to prevent the committee from considering the other side's argument, rather than presenting their own, isn't it? Does that sound like a healthy, functional democracy to you? Is that the sort of tactic that you would like to have deciding how our government is run?
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      I think basically all the sites that facilitated bulk comments are pointless. Can't think of any cases where bulk comments made a difference (outside petitions are a different story, although they're more useful to make obscure issues get noticed by politicians than for changing positions). But I think portraying this as part of some broad conspiracy is a stretch. In theory the fraudulent ones (as opposed to the merely manipulated ones facilitated by websites giving one side of the issue) could have been placed by one bored teen script kiddy. I agree it should be investigated, but I don't think there's reason to demonize Pai for that.
anigbrowl 8y ago
Weird, I happened to submit that page to HN and it shot to the top of the front page and stayed there for most of a day. I guess the originators rigged all the HN votes too. You presume good faith on the part of Pai and his affiliations in withholding information from the public about the FCC comment submissions, while simultaneously disputing the right of pro-NN actors to organize and equating such organization with fraudulent submissions.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  That's misrepresenting what I said. I never said anyone doesn't have a right to organize.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    You directly stated that an effort to solicit and organize submissions means that those submissions were not organic (despite them being initiated by real people), the implication being that those submissions are therefore invalid. What exactly was misrepresented there?
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      Inorganic is not at all the same as invalid. And none of those submissions were "initiated by real people" as you claim - they were initiated by the organization, with the support of people some of whom were real (if you think out of millions of people every single one gave their real name, you're naive).
      - yellowapple 8y ago
        I know that my submission through Battle for the Net's site was indeed initiated by a real person (unless you're claiming I ain't a real person). There's little reason to believe that wasn't the case for the other posts, either (unless you do have specific evidence of that). At least per the stated/apparent design of BffN's site, there was a 1:1 ratio between submitted comments to the FCC and someone explicitly requesting "yes, please submit this comment on my behalf". If you have evidence contradicting BffN's claimed mode of operation, then let's hear it.
yellowapple 8y ago
Battle for the Net's comments were each initiated by a real person (like myself). There was a default message that users could either use as-is or edit/replace. The comments under investigation were outright fake (e.g. using the identities of deceased persons, among other situations where it's demonstrable that the person identified as the "author" of the comment did not actually authorize it).
- ikeboy 8y ago
  I'm responding to parent's reference to "ensure that those comments were an accurate reflection of public sentiment and had not been manipulated by an interested party to benefit themselves", not the investigation.

by ikeboy 8y ago

imgabe 8y ago

> 2.8 million comments were identical and were from a pro-net neutrality site called "Battle for the Net". That's not organic. Lots of advocacy groups offered a form for users to submit comments with a pre-filled comment field in support of net neutrality. I used one myself. The fact that the text is the same does not necessarily imply the comment is fake. There are many other comments where the person who supposedly submitted the comment says that they didn't. That would be a fake comment. > Or what, specific, actions should he have taken? I don't know, how about something besides "not a damn thing"? How about tracking down the source of the fake comments and fining or otherwise holding them accountable if it's within his jurisdiction to do so, or turning them over to the appropriate authorities if not? How about cancelling the comment period due to the rampant fraud, implementing some measures to verify user and re-opening comments to try to get something accurate? How about giving the tiniest shit about the public he's supposed to be serving? Is that too much ask?

ikeboy 8y ago
You seem to be operating under a severe misunderstanding of the point of the public comment system. It is not to figure out whether or not the public supports a particular action. Polls are much better at that particular goal. Rather, the purpose is to surface relevant arguments so the committee can consider those arguments in their decisions.
- imgabe 8y ago
  > Rather, the purpose is to surface relevant arguments so the committee can consider those arguments in their decisions. And would you say that having one side flood the system with millions of fraudulent comments is conducive to this purpose? Before you object, yes it was overwhelmingly one side. FTA of the 14 organizations being investigated, 11 were anti-NN and only 3 are pro. If what you say were true, all they should have had to do was submit their one comment with their best argument against net neutrality so that the committee could consider it. Surely their sound argument would be enough to win the day, right? But that's not what they did, is it? Instead of submitting one argument, they tried to overload the system. It's almost as if they wanted to prevent the committee from considering the other side's argument, rather than presenting their own, isn't it? Does that sound like a healthy, functional democracy to you? Is that the sort of tactic that you would like to have deciding how our government is run?
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    I think basically all the sites that facilitated bulk comments are pointless. Can't think of any cases where bulk comments made a difference (outside petitions are a different story, although they're more useful to make obscure issues get noticed by politicians than for changing positions). But I think portraying this as part of some broad conspiracy is a stretch. In theory the fraudulent ones (as opposed to the merely manipulated ones facilitated by websites giving one side of the issue) could have been placed by one bored teen script kiddy. I agree it should be investigated, but I don't think there's reason to demonize Pai for that.

anigbrowl 8y ago

Weird, I happened to submit that page to HN and it shot to the top of the front page and stayed there for most of a day. I guess the originators rigged all the HN votes too. You presume good faith on the part of Pai and his affiliations in withholding information from the public about the FCC comment submissions, while simultaneously disputing the right of pro-NN actors to organize and equating such organization with fraudulent submissions.

ikeboy 8y ago
That's misrepresenting what I said. I never said anyone doesn't have a right to organize.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  You directly stated that an effort to solicit and organize submissions means that those submissions were not organic (despite them being initiated by real people), the implication being that those submissions are therefore invalid. What exactly was misrepresented there?
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    Inorganic is not at all the same as invalid. And none of those submissions were "initiated by real people" as you claim - they were initiated by the organization, with the support of people some of whom were real (if you think out of millions of people every single one gave their real name, you're naive).
    - yellowapple 8y ago
      I know that my submission through Battle for the Net's site was indeed initiated by a real person (unless you're claiming I ain't a real person). There's little reason to believe that wasn't the case for the other posts, either (unless you do have specific evidence of that). At least per the stated/apparent design of BffN's site, there was a 1:1 ratio between submitted comments to the FCC and someone explicitly requesting "yes, please submit this comment on my behalf". If you have evidence contradicting BffN's claimed mode of operation, then let's hear it.

yellowapple 8y ago

Battle for the Net's comments were each initiated by a real person (like myself). There was a default message that users could either use as-is or edit/replace. The comments under investigation were outright fake (e.g. using the identities of deceased persons, among other situations where it's demonstrable that the person identified as the "author" of the comment did not actually authorize it).

ikeboy 8y ago
I'm responding to parent's reference to "ensure that those comments were an accurate reflection of public sentiment and had not been manipulated by an interested party to benefit themselves", not the investigation.