4 ms·

As 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 a

by ikeboy 8y ago

As 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 ago
Right, 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 ago
So, 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 ago
    If 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.
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      The OP here doesn't have the word cable in it at all. I've gone through the whole article again and see no accusation against any cable providers
      - anigbrowl 8y ago
        If you were simply confused you could have just asked for clarification. I think you know perfectly well who the anti-net neutrality group is, and are fully smart enough to read my shorthand of 'cable providers' as a metonym for 'telecommunications service providers who are opposed to net neutrality and have lobbied against it, as well as their associated vendors.' Sure hope that investigation doesn't turn up anything untoward.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  Also, a cursory search shows some of the fake comments were pro-NN, contrary to the narrative being pushed here. https://www.wsj.com/articles/millions-of-people-post-comments-on-federal-regulations-many-are-fake-1513099188?mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/millions-of-people-post-comment... >The Journal found instances of fakes that favored antiregulation stances but also comments mirroring consumer-groups’ pro-regulation talking points, posted without permission of people whose names were on them. >One 369-word comment supporting the Obama-era net-neutrality rules was posted on the FCC website more than 300,000 times. One of those was attributed to Gloria Burney, 87, a retired speech therapist in Los Angeles. She isn’t in favor of repealing those rules, she said, “but I never wrote that.”
- ikeboy 8y ago
  4,622 people told the WSJ they didn't submit the comment in their name that said "The FCC's open Internet rules (net neutrality rules) are extremely important to me." (this was the Battleforthenet text)

by ikeboy 8y ago

yellowapple 8y ago

Right, 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 ago

So, 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 ago
  If 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.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    The OP here doesn't have the word cable in it at all. I've gone through the whole article again and see no accusation against any cable providers
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      If you were simply confused you could have just asked for clarification. I think you know perfectly well who the anti-net neutrality group is, and are fully smart enough to read my shorthand of 'cable providers' as a metonym for 'telecommunications service providers who are opposed to net neutrality and have lobbied against it, as well as their associated vendors.' Sure hope that investigation doesn't turn up anything untoward.
ikeboy 8y ago
Also, a cursory search shows some of the fake comments were pro-NN, contrary to the narrative being pushed here. https://www.wsj.com/articles/millions-of-people-post-comments-on-federal-regulations-many-are-fake-1513099188?mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/millions-of-people-post-comment... >The Journal found instances of fakes that favored antiregulation stances but also comments mirroring consumer-groups’ pro-regulation talking points, posted without permission of people whose names were on them. >One 369-word comment supporting the Obama-era net-neutrality rules was posted on the FCC website more than 300,000 times. One of those was attributed to Gloria Burney, 87, a retired speech therapist in Los Angeles. She isn’t in favor of repealing those rules, she said, “but I never wrote that.”
ikeboy 8y ago
4,622 people told the WSJ they didn't submit the comment in their name that said "The FCC's open Internet rules (net neutrality rules) are extremely important to me." (this was the Battleforthenet text)