7 ms·
That's misrepresenting what I said. I never said anyone doesn't have a right to organize.
by ikeboy 8y ago
That's misrepresenting what I said. I never said anyone doesn't have a right to organize.
- yellowapple 8y agoYou 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 agoInorganic 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 agoI 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.
- ikeboy 8y agoAs far as I know, they did no real name verification of submissions. Unless you think it's plausible that 2.8 million people all gave real names in absence of any verification, it's clear at least some submissions had fake names/were submitted by people that didn't put their own name.
- yellowapple 8y agoRight, but using a pseudonym is a very different situation from using the name of someone who's dead, which is in turn a very different situation from using the name of someone who's alive and actually holds the opposite position. If the FCC's checking against some list of real names when validating comments, then the BftN-collected comments that didn't use a real name wouldn't go through anyway. If the FCC's not checking against some list of real names, then BtfN possibly getting submissions from people using nicknames is the least of the FCC's worries.
- anigbrowl 8y agoSo, BattlefortheNet submitted close to 3 million pro-NN comments but without any sort of identity verification, while the cable providers are accused of submitting up to 9.5 million comments and misusing the identities of real people. I'm sure some comments were submitted via pseudonyms, the same way you and I post under pseudonyms as opposed to one of us representing ourselves as Ajit Pai, a real person who happens to be FCC chair. It's possible some battleofthenet-originated comments involved fake names that were similarly misappropriated but there doesn't seem to be any body of people complaining about that having happened to them, in contrast to the anti-NN comment submissions. Now if you have any evidence of such an effort, I encourage you to publish or submit it to investigators. But if you don't, it looks like you're trying to undermine the investigation of a big thing by complaining about the potential failings of a smaller thing.
- ikeboy 8y ago>the cable providers are accused of Weasel words. Who is making this accusation? Which cable providers are accused? What is the basis for this accusation?
- anigbrowl 8y agoIf only there were some way to refer back to the article we're commenting on about that very topic. Perhaps you missed it in your hurry to post a barrage of unresponsive replies.