3 ms·

I find it interesting that you keep referring to "the WSJ article linked" -- which now that you've actually linked to it turns out to be a 2017 article that as

I find it interesting that you keep referring to "the WSJ article linked" -- which now that you've actually linked to it turns out to be a 2017 article that as far as I can tell you're the only one who's linking to -- rather than the current article on Gizmodo we're actually discussing here, which describes an investigation that is in fact focused on the specific anti-NN comment submitted by (or through) CQ. Even that WSJ article focuses largely on that specific blatant example, and notes that the several anti-NN statements they examined were "63%, 72% and 80% bogus comments" (the single pro-NN statement they examined "was 32% bogus.") Astroturf exists and is a problem on all sides, yes, but this specific instance is far beyond the pale. Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation. > It's trivial for any teen on 4chan to defeat those measures That's... debatable. But also beside the point. CQ claims they vetted their submissions for "questionable submissions". If that vetting failed to notice that an identical comment was submitted through them that many times, with names in alphabetical order, then they either are lying about vetting their submissions for accuracy, or they are themselves the ones committing the fraud.

ikeboy 8y ago
The article is linked from the OP here. OP is narrowly focused on a particular one out of fourteen companies under investigation for unclear reasons. They don't say whether they've tried similar analysis of any of the other form comments. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say they expect more clicks here than with a more in depth investigation of everyone involved, for reasons left as an exercise to the reader. >Astroturf exists and is a problem on all sides, yes, but this specific instance is far beyond the pale. Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation. 14 organizations are under investigation, not just one. >But also beside the point. CQ claims they vetted their submissions for "questionable submissions". And also gives a few examples, all of which are trivial to bypass, and all of which are automated, so it's not clear why you'd think they are manually looking at any of these before submitting unless it fails the automated tests.
- outsidetheparty 8y ago
  > 14 organizations are under investigation, not just one. I did miss that, fair enough -- amend my statement to "Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation of these 14 organizations". > it's not clear why you'd think they are manually looking at any of these It's not clear why you'd think 818,000 (per WSJ) identical comments submitted in alphabetical order should pass automated tests?
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    >It's not clear why you'd think 818,000 (per WSJ) identical comments submitted in alphabetical order should pass automated tests? There's no reason to think they were submitted originally in alphabetical order. The most likely possibility here is that CQ sorted them before submitting to the FCC.
ikeboy 8y ago
Also, where are you getting the claim that it was submitted in alphabetical order from? It's not in OP.
- outsidetheparty 8y ago
  It was widely reported at the time; here are a couple of cites, several of which were also linked in the OP: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170510/08191137334/bot-is-flooding-fcc-website-with-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments-alphabetical-order.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170510/08191137334/bot-i... https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2017/12/14/earth-to-pai-those-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments-used-stolen-identities/#5a05dd776c6a https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2017/12/14/earth-to... https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-bot-is-flooding-the-fccs-website-with-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-bot-is-flooding-the-fccs-web... (Also, FWIW I personally witnessed it while trying to submit my own comment on the issue; the viewable posted comments were about 98% duplicates of that one "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet" etc, and the names were somewhere in the E's.)
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    And do you have any reason to think they were submitted to CQ in alphabetical order, as opposed to the obvious possibility that CQ or their client sorted them prior to submission to the FCC?
    - outsidetheparty 8y ago
      They're timestamped.
      - ikeboy 8y ago
        Those timestamps are the time the FCC received them. If you read through the email chain you'll see they had many comments ready (the email says he was expecting to send over 250k comments/day) prior to submitting any or getting the API access set up. This wasn't real-time submission, and this should be clear from OP.
ikeboy 8y ago
It occurs to me that it's entirely possible CQ would sort the comments by alphabetical order of the commenter before submitting them in bulk, still not sure where it's from but that seems a likely explanation.
- outsidetheparty 8y ago
  The submissions are individually timestamped, not pre-sorted and submitted in bulk.

ikeboy 8y ago

The article is linked from the OP here. OP is narrowly focused on a particular one out of fourteen companies under investigation for unclear reasons. They don't say whether they've tried similar analysis of any of the other form comments. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say they expect more clicks here than with a more in depth investigation of everyone involved, for reasons left as an exercise to the reader. >Astroturf exists and is a problem on all sides, yes, but this specific instance is far beyond the pale. Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation. 14 organizations are under investigation, not just one. >But also beside the point. CQ claims they vetted their submissions for "questionable submissions". And also gives a few examples, all of which are trivial to bypass, and all of which are automated, so it's not clear why you'd think they are manually looking at any of these before submitting unless it fails the automated tests.

outsidetheparty 8y ago
> 14 organizations are under investigation, not just one. I did miss that, fair enough -- amend my statement to "Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation of these 14 organizations". > it's not clear why you'd think they are manually looking at any of these It's not clear why you'd think 818,000 (per WSJ) identical comments submitted in alphabetical order should pass automated tests?
- ikeboy 8y ago
  >It's not clear why you'd think 818,000 (per WSJ) identical comments submitted in alphabetical order should pass automated tests? There's no reason to think they were submitted originally in alphabetical order. The most likely possibility here is that CQ sorted them before submitting to the FCC.

ikeboy 8y ago

Also, where are you getting the claim that it was submitted in alphabetical order from? It's not in OP.

outsidetheparty 8y ago
It was widely reported at the time; here are a couple of cites, several of which were also linked in the OP: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170510/08191137334/bot-is-flooding-fcc-website-with-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments-alphabetical-order.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170510/08191137334/bot-i... https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2017/12/14/earth-to-pai-those-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments-used-stolen-identities/#5a05dd776c6a https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2017/12/14/earth-to... https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-bot-is-flooding-the-fccs-website-with-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-bot-is-flooding-the-fccs-web... (Also, FWIW I personally witnessed it while trying to submit my own comment on the issue; the viewable posted comments were about 98% duplicates of that one "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet" etc, and the names were somewhere in the E's.)
- ikeboy 8y ago
  And do you have any reason to think they were submitted to CQ in alphabetical order, as opposed to the obvious possibility that CQ or their client sorted them prior to submission to the FCC?
  - outsidetheparty 8y ago
    They're timestamped.
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      Those timestamps are the time the FCC received them. If you read through the email chain you'll see they had many comments ready (the email says he was expecting to send over 250k comments/day) prior to submitting any or getting the API access set up. This wasn't real-time submission, and this should be clear from OP.

ikeboy 8y ago

It occurs to me that it's entirely possible CQ would sort the comments by alphabetical order of the commenter before submitting them in bulk, still not sure where it's from but that seems a likely explanation.

outsidetheparty 8y ago
The submissions are individually timestamped, not pre-sorted and submitted in bulk.