4 ms·

The story is that citizen have nothing to gain from anti net neutrality laws. So basically, all comments against net neutrality are either faked or by someone w

by d--b 7y ago

The story is that citizen have nothing to gain from anti net neutrality laws. So basically, all comments against net neutrality are either faked or by someone who has skin in the game. People ought to go to jail for this kind of crap.

phs318u 7y ago
> People ought to go to jail for this kind of crap. Yes. The inability of ordinary citizens to ensure that this occurs, is what allows corruption to flourish.
mwyah 7y ago
>The story is that citizen have nothing to gain from anti net neutrality laws. Uh? I very much enjoy my zero-rated services.
- 300bps 7y ago
  Uh? I very much enjoy my zero-rated services. It is fantastically ironic that this anti net neutrality comment was posted with a 17 hour old throw-away account.
  - mwyah 7y ago
    dang can attest that I've been here for years. :-) Anyway, I'm pretty sure that customers like zero-rating services. Just think of it: for many people Facebook is the Internet. How is an exemption from the data cap for Facebook a bad thing for the end consumer? Yeah I know, maybe not a good idea in the long term regarding competition, but I don't think customers care too much about that.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
dTal 7y ago
I'm right there with you that "this sort of thing", i.e. deliberately subverting the process of democracy, should be a serious crime on par with treason. However, can we qualitatively define a line that demarcates "honest communication" from "malicious attempts to change public opinion"? You can't make it a crime to try convince people of things. The basic intent we would like to capture is it should be illegal to lie for political gain, including subtle lies of omission like anonymously pretending on the internet that you're a disinterested bystander. But lying is a very slippery concept to legally define (as is "political gain").
- d--b 7y ago
  Well, faking twitter accounts is one thing that should be dealt with, and I agree this is hard. But here, we're talking about spoofing actual people's identity without their knowledge.
  - zo1 7y ago
    So hacking peoples' identity without their knowledge is the bad thing here. What they did with those identities ideally is secondary.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  So on which side of your nebulous edge-casing slippery slope do you think hiring firms to write millions of fake comments from stolen identities to provide your captured regulator enough FUD should fall?
  - dTal 7y ago
    ...the bad side? I thought I was very clear about that. I don't really understand why I'm catching flak. Obviously the stolen identities is something we can definitively point to that can fairly straightforwardly be made illegal, if it isn't already. But most astroturfing campaigns don't do that, and although it makes this a particularly compelling case it's not actually the meatiest part of what makes it bad. Millions of comments from invented accounts to provide background FUD would also be very evil. But what part of that can we actually make illegal, without also compromising the free speech of you and me? Hiring PR firms? Writing comments on the internet? Unfortunately, "I know sketchy shit when I see it" just isn't good enough. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing. I want there to be answer. I was hoping for suggestions.
nroets 7y ago
Some citizens will argue that net neutrality will kill internet services that's subsidized by advertising. For example free access to Facebook. Or the social network bundles in South Africa[1][2] Furthermore, I've met poor, conservative Americans who hate any form of government regulation. Even if it's patently obvious that they will personally benefit from some proposed regulation, they believe it will be bad for in the long run for their country. Their comments are not fake. 1: https://www.mtn.co.za/Pages/MTN-Social-Bundles.aspx https://www.mtn.co.za/Pages/MTN-Social-Bundles.aspx 2: https://www.cellc.co.za/cellc/get-whatsappbundles https://www.cellc.co.za/cellc/get-whatsappbundles (Edited to give these examples)
- kaibee 7y ago
  > Some citizens will argue that net neutrality will kill internet services that's subsidized by advertising. For example free access to Facebook. But NN has absolutely nothing to do with that.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    nroets refers to schemes like "Facebook Free Basics" [1] where mobile users in developing countries would get universal, free basic internet service. This meant they could access Wikipedia, Facebook and Bing [2] but couldn't access EdX or Khan Academy or Google. Although perhaps well-meaning, the scheme was widely opposed by net neutrality advocates [3]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10939594/mark-zuckerberg-internet-org-india-court-defeat-zero-rating https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10939594/mark-zuckerberg-i... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org#Available_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org#Available_website... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-row https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-fac...
- willis936 7y ago
  Yes. A whole 0.3% of the non bot submissions said that. There are two legitimate sides to this, it’s just that the overwhelming majority of the public is in favor of one. Representative democracy failed here.

by d--b 7y ago

phs318u 7y ago

> People ought to go to jail for this kind of crap. Yes. The inability of ordinary citizens to ensure that this occurs, is what allows corruption to flourish.

mwyah 7y ago

>The story is that citizen have nothing to gain from anti net neutrality laws. Uh? I very much enjoy my zero-rated services.

300bps 7y ago
Uh? I very much enjoy my zero-rated services. It is fantastically ironic that this anti net neutrality comment was posted with a 17 hour old throw-away account.
- mwyah 7y ago
  dang can attest that I've been here for years. :-) Anyway, I'm pretty sure that customers like zero-rating services. Just think of it: for many people Facebook is the Internet. How is an exemption from the data cap for Facebook a bad thing for the end consumer? Yeah I know, maybe not a good idea in the long term regarding competition, but I don't think customers care too much about that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

dTal 7y ago

I'm right there with you that "this sort of thing", i.e. deliberately subverting the process of democracy, should be a serious crime on par with treason. However, can we qualitatively define a line that demarcates "honest communication" from "malicious attempts to change public opinion"? You can't make it a crime to try convince people of things. The basic intent we would like to capture is it should be illegal to lie for political gain, including subtle lies of omission like anonymously pretending on the internet that you're a disinterested bystander. But lying is a very slippery concept to legally define (as is "political gain").

d--b 7y ago
Well, faking twitter accounts is one thing that should be dealt with, and I agree this is hard. But here, we're talking about spoofing actual people's identity without their knowledge.
- zo1 7y ago
  So hacking peoples' identity without their knowledge is the bad thing here. What they did with those identities ideally is secondary.
PeterStuer 7y ago
So on which side of your nebulous edge-casing slippery slope do you think hiring firms to write millions of fake comments from stolen identities to provide your captured regulator enough FUD should fall?
- dTal 7y ago
  ...the bad side? I thought I was very clear about that. I don't really understand why I'm catching flak. Obviously the stolen identities is something we can definitively point to that can fairly straightforwardly be made illegal, if it isn't already. But most astroturfing campaigns don't do that, and although it makes this a particularly compelling case it's not actually the meatiest part of what makes it bad. Millions of comments from invented accounts to provide background FUD would also be very evil. But what part of that can we actually make illegal, without also compromising the free speech of you and me? Hiring PR firms? Writing comments on the internet? Unfortunately, "I know sketchy shit when I see it" just isn't good enough. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing. I want there to be answer. I was hoping for suggestions.

nroets 7y ago

Some citizens will argue that net neutrality will kill internet services that's subsidized by advertising. For example free access to Facebook. Or the social network bundles in South Africa[1][2] Furthermore, I've met poor, conservative Americans who hate any form of government regulation. Even if it's patently obvious that they will personally benefit from some proposed regulation, they believe it will be bad for in the long run for their country. Their comments are not fake. 1: https://www.mtn.co.za/Pages/MTN-Social-Bundles.aspx https://www.mtn.co.za/Pages/MTN-Social-Bundles.aspx 2: https://www.cellc.co.za/cellc/get-whatsappbundles https://www.cellc.co.za/cellc/get-whatsappbundles (Edited to give these examples)

kaibee 7y ago
> Some citizens will argue that net neutrality will kill internet services that's subsidized by advertising. For example free access to Facebook. But NN has absolutely nothing to do with that.
- michaelt 7y ago
  nroets refers to schemes like "Facebook Free Basics" [1] where mobile users in developing countries would get universal, free basic internet service. This meant they could access Wikipedia, Facebook and Bing [2] but couldn't access EdX or Khan Academy or Google. Although perhaps well-meaning, the scheme was widely opposed by net neutrality advocates [3]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10939594/mark-zuckerberg-internet-org-india-court-defeat-zero-rating https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10939594/mark-zuckerberg-i... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org#Available_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org#Available_website... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-row https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-fac...
willis936 7y ago
Yes. A whole 0.3% of the non bot submissions said that. There are two legitimate sides to this, it’s just that the overwhelming majority of the public is in favor of one. Representative democracy failed here.