3 ms·

Pai worked as Associate General Counsel at Verizon from 2001 to 2003, over 15 years ago. Neither Pai nor the FCC didn't orchestrated or have anything to do wit

Pai worked as Associate General Counsel at Verizon from 2001 to 2003, over 15 years ago. Neither Pai nor the FCC didn't orchestrated or have anything to do with the comment campaign. FCC paying the marketing company for fake comments would be psyops. What happened is a problem, but not what the OP was suggesting.

calibas 7y ago
Of course the FCC didn't pay for it, they just looked the other way while it happened. There's just enough separation that people like you can make the argument that it's technically not "psyops". The FCC is complicit in the whole damned thing, so the result is the same and the industry got it's way. We can argue semantics though...
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  FCC didn't plant it, didn't pay for it, didn't orchestrate it, so not really complicit. The worst you can say is they didn't do enough to stop it because it was supporting what they wanted. Guilty of confirmation bias, certainly. Psyops? no.
  - calibas 7y ago
    "it was supporting what they wanted" Yeah, because the FCC and "Broadband for America" are only separate in theory. When you have the industry controlling the FCC to this point, the only difference between psyops and marketing is who's footing the bill. You're technically right base upon a very literal definition of psyops, but missing the whole point.
  - calibas 7y ago
    If you look the other way while someone commits a crime, especially when you're a regulatory agency, that makes you a criminal. That makes you complicit, you're helping the criminals get away with it. To me, you're acting like a jaw-dropping level of corruption is somehow excusable, perhaps because it's "normal"?