7 ms·

I fully understand both the cases for and against having net neutrality rules. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why a bunch of comments on a webs

I fully understand both the cases for and against having net neutrality rules. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why a bunch of comments on a website has somehow become the battleground where this is being fought. What is going on here? As far as I can tell, the comments have about as much sway on public policy as the average youtube comment – none whatsoever.

blakesterz 6y ago
I don't think it's really that the comments matter all that much, the judge explains it pretty well I thought: "Here, disclosing the originating IP addresses and user-agent headers would help clarify whether and to what extent fraudulent activity interfered with the comment process for the FCC's [net neutrality repeal], and more generally, the extent to which administrative rulemaking may be vulnerable to corruption. This serves a vital public interest because of the importance of public comments in agency rulemaking," Schofield wrote.
bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
The comments are the proof that the Ajit Pai and the FCC went into the process already planning to axe net neutrality and ignored the real comments put forth by net neutrality supporters in favor of fake comments put forth by net neutrality detractors that arguably constitute identity theft. [1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/dead-people-among-millions-impersonated-in-fake-net-neutrality-comments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/dead-people-amon...
- paypalcust83 6y ago
  FCC comments are like petitions: useless, virtual-signaling, pseudo-actions that are easily ignored. Calling reps and challenging their re-election prospects are the most fundamental ways to influence the FCC because the corporations have the most say when the people don't make enough noise.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Except for when they’re not ignored? Remember Wheeler who was against net neutrality, and then he wasn’t after the comments?
nappa-leon 6y ago
There were very large numbers of comments both for and against net neutrality, but the ones against net neutrality seemed to largely be autogenerated and fraudulent, using names of people who said they didn't write them.
- nickff 6y ago
  The parent is just pointing out that whether genuine or fraudulent, the comments didn't matter. I have had the same thought, and I am not sure why the veracity of the comments is fomenting so much anger. No matter what the comments had said, the FCC would have done the same thing; Pai had been very clear about his opinion on net neutrality over the course of many years.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    I got the impression the NYT is waging this battle more to figure out who was behind fraudulent comments rather than to determine which comments were fraudulent and which were legitimate. First rule of any good investigative reporting: follow the money. Whoever paid for the comments must have had some motivation for committing fraud and identity theft en masse. The fact that the FCC is fighting to keep the comment-purchasers IP address(es) secret is telling in and of itself though I suppose.
    - willis936 6y ago
      You wouldn’t be implying that ex-Verizon-Corporate-Lawyer Ajit Pai might have a conflict of interest when serving the public, would you?
      - giantrobot 6y ago
        Perish the thought!
  - gottareply2020 6y ago
    Abuse of power is important to curtail. If public officials are falsifying public comments, that matters. And to many American citizens, the truth still matters. As for your actual premise, ‘the comments didn’t matter’, the rest of your comment invalidates your premise. Because if the comments did not matter, then the FCC would feel no need to fake the result. What you mean to say is, ‘the comments would not effect the outcome of the FCC’s decision.’ And we can have a proper opinionated debate as to whether that is true. But the comments clearly ‘matter’.
bbatsell 6y ago
There is a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires executive agencies to follow a process while engaging in rulemaking. Part of the process is a public comment period, and agencies are required to substantively address the concerns in public comments. If, for example, the public comment process is 99% against a proposal and the agency proceeds without having a VERY good argument, it can get struck down by judicial review. Pai knows this, and the fact that the public comments on net neutrality rulemaking were so obviously manipulated has made people think there is at least a possibility that he, or the FCC, was complicit, in order to flout the APA. The fact that the agency has gone out of its way to cover the situation up does not inspire much confidence, either. TL;DR: A bunch of comments on a website could result in the FCC's actions being struck down in court.
Traster 6y ago
I don't think it's true to say that the comments to the FCC have no impact. It's a part of their process for a reason, and the fact that somoene felt the need to stuff the ballot points to genuine concern. I think it's fairly reasonable to say it would have put Pai in a difficult position politically to institute a rule after 100% of people petitioned against it. Which is why the clearly fraudulent activity happened. I think the reason the case is being fought is the same reason, it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. The point is to rules lawyer through the situation - oh well the comments were a wash, oh well there seems to have been fraud, let's ignore the comments entirely, oh well we can actually really easily tell which comments were fraudulent, but the rules have been in place for years now so it's a moot point.
- takeda 6y ago
  > it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not.
  - fphhotchips 6y ago
    I think 'they' in this statement refers to the members of the FCC that wanted the change.
  - Traster 6y ago
    Sorry, by they, I meant the FCC.
    - takeda 6y ago
      Ah I see, but also not entirely true either, they were divided internally as well. There are 5 commissioners, 2 of them were actually pro NN, the other 2 + chairman Pai were against it, so they were overruled.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    > I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach).
vkou 6y ago
If public comments were not a part of the decision-making process, then the agencies in question wouldn't be asking for public comments. If they are asking for them, and piping them into /dev/null, that's a scandal that FOIA requests can reveal. It also gives political capital for a subsequent administration to overturn a ruling with minimal fuss.
openasocket 6y ago
Very good question! This all falls under what is called the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While it sounds very dull, like it involves making sure bureaucrats fill out the right forms, it's actually a very important limit on the power of the executive branch. Especially in the last century we've seen the executive branch get bigger and bigger, with more and more government agencies giving significant power to bureaucrats appointed by the President: unelected, and some not even confirmed by the Senate. A large portion of regulations are set by them, and the worry is that the second the other party takes over the White House they will immediately change all the regulations to their choosing, and back and forth. Regulations rapidly changing based on which party is in control, not to mention being subject to the whims of often unelected bureaucrats, is really bad for consumers and businesses. At its core, the APA says that changes to regulations cannot be "arbitrary and capricious": i.e. that someone can't just arbitrarily create, remove, or change regulations just because they feel like it. There is a required procedure you have to do to change regulations. You have to propose your change, have a public comment period where anyone (ordinary people, industry people, activists, everyone) can voice their concerns, and then they have to make a decision. They also have to specifically address people's concerns and give a specific rationale why they agree with this person and disagree with that person, and so on. If a change is made to a regulation that doesn't respond to all of the concerns expressed, or has a rationale that doesn't make sense, you can sue and have the change stopped. Long story short, that is why comments on a website genuinely matter to the regulatory process. EDIT: as a side note, the current administration has been sued a lot over APA violations. Most of the lawsuits brought by states against the federal government you hear about in the news hinge on the APA. An example off the top of my head is the repeal of DACA. Now, DACA was an executive order and could have been un-done by an executive order (executive orders are mostly not subject to the APA). But Trump did not make an executive order repealing DACA: instead the Attorney General removed the rule himself, which means his decision was subject to APA review. As a part of this he had to publish a document explaining why he was going to repeal it. In it he said the reason he was repealing DACA was because he believed it was unconstitutional. A number of states have sued over this change, and one of the legal arguments used is an APA violation, because there is no evidence that DACA is unconstitutional. Which gets to what I find interesting about the APA; it forces the person making the change to specifically spell out their reasoning and rationalization for making that change. If their reasoning is faulty you can sue, and the federal government can't defend it by throwing about alternative rationales for the decision.
takeda 6y ago
Because those are not youtube comments. Whenever FCC makes a policy change there is a period when citizens can comment on it and express their opinions and concern. To faithfully execute FCC supposed to include these comments in decision, they still could go against it, but they need to address the concerns raised there. The false comments, basically gave them opportunity to claim that citizens were equally divided and they could just ignore them, when in reality people were overwhelmingly against the changes. The whole FCC change reminds me of ICANN and .org TLD. Overwhelmingly unpopular to the public but driven by special interests.
- jachee 6y ago
  > Overwhelmingly unpopular to the public but driven by special interests. I'd suggest this describes most lobbying. When something's overwhelmingly popular to the public, no one has to get paid to make that clear to the powers-that-be.
Shivetya 6y ago
because in the last decade or so, if not more, the common method of attack has been to shame. not debate on merits, in public shame. don't believe for a minute they won't resort to combining the information to find people. they will also pretty much write off any ip addresses linked to questionable IPs that supported the cause the paper needs supported. sadly in this inter connected world it is far easier to name and shame people which thwarts any useful discussion, it is no different than voter intimidation; which is why one side wants to do away with secret ballots in unionization pushes. winning is all that is cared about. what are we going to do when either the NYT or another organization links back those ids to private individuals, just hashtag apologize and ignore it?
- elliekelly 6y ago
  There are no “private” individuals who commented. These are public comments. As in, they are on the public record. A full name and address was required in order to submit a comment. There is no privacy or anonymity when you’re commenting on the public record. The NYT of any other organization can pull the filing and see each and every name and address associated with a comment. No combing or linking back to IDs needed. It’s all there for the entire world the see as part of the public record. The information that will be exposed by this ruling is the IP address(es) of whoever fraudulently commented using other people’s names and addresses.
axus 6y ago
It would be good to know how many of these comments are astroturfed from lazy lobbying groups. I imagine that is why they are requesting.
refurb 6y ago
Comment periods for draft laws certainly do have an impact. It's basically an opportunity for people to weigh in on the law and get a pulse check on how onboard people are.
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
Its a skirmish in the campaign being waged by our intelligence services and others who insist the Russian government has been waging a secret campaign to attack our country and "sow division" by using sockpuppets and spam posts on a variety of platforms. I don't have much of a problem with this ruling given that all commenters were warned: "every commenter was provided with a privacy notice, stating that '[a]ll information submitted, including names and addresses, will be publicly available via the Web.'"

blakesterz 6y ago

I don't think it's really that the comments matter all that much, the judge explains it pretty well I thought: "Here, disclosing the originating IP addresses and user-agent headers would help clarify whether and to what extent fraudulent activity interfered with the comment process for the FCC's [net neutrality repeal], and more generally, the extent to which administrative rulemaking may be vulnerable to corruption. This serves a vital public interest because of the importance of public comments in agency rulemaking," Schofield wrote.

bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago

The comments are the proof that the Ajit Pai and the FCC went into the process already planning to axe net neutrality and ignored the real comments put forth by net neutrality supporters in favor of fake comments put forth by net neutrality detractors that arguably constitute identity theft. [1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/dead-people-among-millions-impersonated-in-fake-net-neutrality-comments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/dead-people-amon...

paypalcust83 6y ago
FCC comments are like petitions: useless, virtual-signaling, pseudo-actions that are easily ignored. Calling reps and challenging their re-election prospects are the most fundamental ways to influence the FCC because the corporations have the most say when the people don't make enough noise.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Except for when they’re not ignored? Remember Wheeler who was against net neutrality, and then he wasn’t after the comments?

nappa-leon 6y ago

There were very large numbers of comments both for and against net neutrality, but the ones against net neutrality seemed to largely be autogenerated and fraudulent, using names of people who said they didn't write them.

nickff 6y ago
The parent is just pointing out that whether genuine or fraudulent, the comments didn't matter. I have had the same thought, and I am not sure why the veracity of the comments is fomenting so much anger. No matter what the comments had said, the FCC would have done the same thing; Pai had been very clear about his opinion on net neutrality over the course of many years.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I got the impression the NYT is waging this battle more to figure out who was behind fraudulent comments rather than to determine which comments were fraudulent and which were legitimate. First rule of any good investigative reporting: follow the money. Whoever paid for the comments must have had some motivation for committing fraud and identity theft en masse. The fact that the FCC is fighting to keep the comment-purchasers IP address(es) secret is telling in and of itself though I suppose.
  - willis936 6y ago
    You wouldn’t be implying that ex-Verizon-Corporate-Lawyer Ajit Pai might have a conflict of interest when serving the public, would you?
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      Perish the thought!
- gottareply2020 6y ago
  Abuse of power is important to curtail. If public officials are falsifying public comments, that matters. And to many American citizens, the truth still matters. As for your actual premise, ‘the comments didn’t matter’, the rest of your comment invalidates your premise. Because if the comments did not matter, then the FCC would feel no need to fake the result. What you mean to say is, ‘the comments would not effect the outcome of the FCC’s decision.’ And we can have a proper opinionated debate as to whether that is true. But the comments clearly ‘matter’.

bbatsell 6y ago

There is a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires executive agencies to follow a process while engaging in rulemaking. Part of the process is a public comment period, and agencies are required to substantively address the concerns in public comments. If, for example, the public comment process is 99% against a proposal and the agency proceeds without having a VERY good argument, it can get struck down by judicial review. Pai knows this, and the fact that the public comments on net neutrality rulemaking were so obviously manipulated has made people think there is at least a possibility that he, or the FCC, was complicit, in order to flout the APA. The fact that the agency has gone out of its way to cover the situation up does not inspire much confidence, either. TL;DR: A bunch of comments on a website could result in the FCC's actions being struck down in court.

Traster 6y ago

I don't think it's true to say that the comments to the FCC have no impact. It's a part of their process for a reason, and the fact that somoene felt the need to stuff the ballot points to genuine concern. I think it's fairly reasonable to say it would have put Pai in a difficult position politically to institute a rule after 100% of people petitioned against it. Which is why the clearly fraudulent activity happened. I think the reason the case is being fought is the same reason, it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. The point is to rules lawyer through the situation - oh well the comments were a wash, oh well there seems to have been fraud, let's ignore the comments entirely, oh well we can actually really easily tell which comments were fraudulent, but the rules have been in place for years now so it's a moot point.

takeda 6y ago
> it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not.
- fphhotchips 6y ago
  I think 'they' in this statement refers to the members of the FCC that wanted the change.
- Traster 6y ago
  Sorry, by they, I meant the FCC.
  - takeda 6y ago
    Ah I see, but also not entirely true either, they were divided internally as well. There are 5 commissioners, 2 of them were actually pro NN, the other 2 + chairman Pai were against it, so they were overruled.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  > I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach).

vkou 6y ago

If public comments were not a part of the decision-making process, then the agencies in question wouldn't be asking for public comments. If they are asking for them, and piping them into /dev/null, that's a scandal that FOIA requests can reveal. It also gives political capital for a subsequent administration to overturn a ruling with minimal fuss.

openasocket 6y ago

Very good question! This all falls under what is called the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While it sounds very dull, like it involves making sure bureaucrats fill out the right forms, it's actually a very important limit on the power of the executive branch. Especially in the last century we've seen the executive branch get bigger and bigger, with more and more government agencies giving significant power to bureaucrats appointed by the President: unelected, and some not even confirmed by the Senate. A large portion of regulations are set by them, and the worry is that the second the other party takes over the White House they will immediately change all the regulations to their choosing, and back and forth. Regulations rapidly changing based on which party is in control, not to mention being subject to the whims of often unelected bureaucrats, is really bad for consumers and businesses. At its core, the APA says that changes to regulations cannot be "arbitrary and capricious": i.e. that someone can't just arbitrarily create, remove, or change regulations just because they feel like it. There is a required procedure you have to do to change regulations. You have to propose your change, have a public comment period where anyone (ordinary people, industry people, activists, everyone) can voice their concerns, and then they have to make a decision. They also have to specifically address people's concerns and give a specific rationale why they agree with this person and disagree with that person, and so on. If a change is made to a regulation that doesn't respond to all of the concerns expressed, or has a rationale that doesn't make sense, you can sue and have the change stopped. Long story short, that is why comments on a website genuinely matter to the regulatory process. EDIT: as a side note, the current administration has been sued a lot over APA violations. Most of the lawsuits brought by states against the federal government you hear about in the news hinge on the APA. An example off the top of my head is the repeal of DACA. Now, DACA was an executive order and could have been un-done by an executive order (executive orders are mostly not subject to the APA). But Trump did not make an executive order repealing DACA: instead the Attorney General removed the rule himself, which means his decision was subject to APA review. As a part of this he had to publish a document explaining why he was going to repeal it. In it he said the reason he was repealing DACA was because he believed it was unconstitutional. A number of states have sued over this change, and one of the legal arguments used is an APA violation, because there is no evidence that DACA is unconstitutional. Which gets to what I find interesting about the APA; it forces the person making the change to specifically spell out their reasoning and rationalization for making that change. If their reasoning is faulty you can sue, and the federal government can't defend it by throwing about alternative rationales for the decision.

takeda 6y ago

Because those are not youtube comments. Whenever FCC makes a policy change there is a period when citizens can comment on it and express their opinions and concern. To faithfully execute FCC supposed to include these comments in decision, they still could go against it, but they need to address the concerns raised there. The false comments, basically gave them opportunity to claim that citizens were equally divided and they could just ignore them, when in reality people were overwhelmingly against the changes. The whole FCC change reminds me of ICANN and .org TLD. Overwhelmingly unpopular to the public but driven by special interests.

jachee 6y ago
> Overwhelmingly unpopular to the public but driven by special interests. I'd suggest this describes most lobbying. When something's overwhelmingly popular to the public, no one has to get paid to make that clear to the powers-that-be.

Shivetya 6y ago

because in the last decade or so, if not more, the common method of attack has been to shame. not debate on merits, in public shame. don't believe for a minute they won't resort to combining the information to find people. they will also pretty much write off any ip addresses linked to questionable IPs that supported the cause the paper needs supported. sadly in this inter connected world it is far easier to name and shame people which thwarts any useful discussion, it is no different than voter intimidation; which is why one side wants to do away with secret ballots in unionization pushes. winning is all that is cared about. what are we going to do when either the NYT or another organization links back those ids to private individuals, just hashtag apologize and ignore it?

elliekelly 6y ago
There are no “private” individuals who commented. These are public comments. As in, they are on the public record. A full name and address was required in order to submit a comment. There is no privacy or anonymity when you’re commenting on the public record. The NYT of any other organization can pull the filing and see each and every name and address associated with a comment. No combing or linking back to IDs needed. It’s all there for the entire world the see as part of the public record. The information that will be exposed by this ruling is the IP address(es) of whoever fraudulently commented using other people’s names and addresses.

axus 6y ago

It would be good to know how many of these comments are astroturfed from lazy lobbying groups. I imagine that is why they are requesting.

refurb 6y ago

Comment periods for draft laws certainly do have an impact. It's basically an opportunity for people to weigh in on the law and get a pulse check on how onboard people are.

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

Its a skirmish in the campaign being waged by our intelligence services and others who insist the Russian government has been waging a secret campaign to attack our country and "sow division" by using sockpuppets and spam posts on a variety of platforms. I don't have much of a problem with this ruling given that all commenters were warned: "every commenter was provided with a privacy notice, stating that '[a]ll information submitted, including names and addresses, will be publicly available via the Web.'"