4 ms·

The thing is, "the ballot box" you refer to was just a way for random people on the internet to submit comments. It isn't intended, I think, as a way to guide p

The thing is, "the ballot box" you refer to was just a way for random people on the internet to submit comments. It isn't intended, I think, as a way to guide policy. I expect that they switched to web-based commentary because, historically, they've accepted letters and the web-forms are just an "upgrade". Who's going to hire staff to open, read and respond to letters these days? These fake "grassroots" operatives merely abused the web-commentary system in order to keep the FCC leadership (and Republicans) from being completely humiliated by the sheer number of people in favor of net neutrality. Turns out, they got sloppy and went a bit overboard. What is really disturbing, however, is that the company named, "CQ" is in the business of automating "campaigns" with software and data analysis. To them, it doesn't matter WHAT the campaign actually is as long as they get a paying customer-- smears and disinformation is just another day of work for them. There's so many layers of slime here, it's hard to know where to start.

acdha 8y ago
> It isn't intended, I think, as a way to guide policy. Public comment is explicitly intended to guide policy. It’s not a vote but the entire point of the process is to get feedback before a policy is finalized and most agencies attempt to address common points. It’s reasonable to question the inherent assumption of good faith with the current administration but we’re also in an unusual time where the most cynical view of previous administrations are now the smart money view of how things work.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  Public comment is meant to surface arguments to be taken into account to guide policy. As such, having 1 or 10 million people make the exact same argument in the same words doesn't change anything.
  - acdha 8y ago
    This is only true in the most simple cases. If there’s any portion of a proposed policy which is balancing different interests - which is almost always the case - the ratio of comments is a useful metric because it would surface problems such as e.g. a policy which big companies are comfortable with but hit many small ones with substantial compliance overhead. In this case, having tons of AstroTurf comments allows them to say that there’s public support outside of large ISPs. Given how anticompetitive the decision was, they needed that fig leaf.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      No agency would be on firm footing pointing to a large number of identical form comments received for one side as a factor in a balancing of interests. It would not survive the “reasoned decision making” requirement. To the extent you’re talking about balancing the needs of small and large companies, for example, you’d have to point to concrete examples and data. That could come in comments (small businesses talking about real challenges they’ve faced), but relying on a large number of identical form comments wouldn’t pass muster.
      - acdha 8y ago
        If you assume good faith, yes. In the environment they were in where they knew that oversight was in friendly hands, however, I think they were just looking for enough to say the process was followed knowing that it’d be done before it’d get any critical examination.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Exactly. This is why the continued focus on "fake comments" in this process is so tiring... They didn't mean anything to begin with. Just as the comments opposing net neutrality didn't matter either. The FCC does not pass regulations by open voting and never did.
    - jjoonathan 8y ago
      If the fake comments didn't mean anything, why make them?
      - crispyambulance 8y ago
        That's a very interesting question. I suspect this incident demonstrates the scope of disinformation campaigns and the industry that enables them. It is totally possible that cramming a couple million fake comments into the FCC was done solely for the purpose providing a politician a "talking point" in favor of getting rid of net neutrality.
bradknowles 8y ago
When one dollar = one vote, I think it’s pretty obvious where this process ends.

acdha 8y ago

> It isn't intended, I think, as a way to guide policy. Public comment is explicitly intended to guide policy. It’s not a vote but the entire point of the process is to get feedback before a policy is finalized and most agencies attempt to address common points. It’s reasonable to question the inherent assumption of good faith with the current administration but we’re also in an unusual time where the most cynical view of previous administrations are now the smart money view of how things work.

ikeboy 8y ago
Public comment is meant to surface arguments to be taken into account to guide policy. As such, having 1 or 10 million people make the exact same argument in the same words doesn't change anything.
- acdha 8y ago
  This is only true in the most simple cases. If there’s any portion of a proposed policy which is balancing different interests - which is almost always the case - the ratio of comments is a useful metric because it would surface problems such as e.g. a policy which big companies are comfortable with but hit many small ones with substantial compliance overhead. In this case, having tons of AstroTurf comments allows them to say that there’s public support outside of large ISPs. Given how anticompetitive the decision was, they needed that fig leaf.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    No agency would be on firm footing pointing to a large number of identical form comments received for one side as a factor in a balancing of interests. It would not survive the “reasoned decision making” requirement. To the extent you’re talking about balancing the needs of small and large companies, for example, you’d have to point to concrete examples and data. That could come in comments (small businesses talking about real challenges they’ve faced), but relying on a large number of identical form comments wouldn’t pass muster.
    - acdha 8y ago
      If you assume good faith, yes. In the environment they were in where they knew that oversight was in friendly hands, however, I think they were just looking for enough to say the process was followed knowing that it’d be done before it’d get any critical examination.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Exactly. This is why the continued focus on "fake comments" in this process is so tiring... They didn't mean anything to begin with. Just as the comments opposing net neutrality didn't matter either. The FCC does not pass regulations by open voting and never did.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    If the fake comments didn't mean anything, why make them?
    - crispyambulance 8y ago
      That's a very interesting question. I suspect this incident demonstrates the scope of disinformation campaigns and the industry that enables them. It is totally possible that cramming a couple million fake comments into the FCC was done solely for the purpose providing a politician a "talking point" in favor of getting rid of net neutrality.

bradknowles 8y ago

When one dollar = one vote, I think it’s pretty obvious where this process ends.