6 ms·

It was obvious at the time. I recall many people reporting that fake comments antithetical to their own beliefs had been submitted using their identities. Why

It was obvious at the time. I recall many people reporting that fake comments antithetical to their own beliefs had been submitted using their identities. Why was FCC head Ajit Pai able to get away with citing fraudulent evidence? How can we stop such blatant corruption of the FCC's policy-making process in the future?

BikiniPrince 5y ago
People had claimed their own email address had been used to post a message. The messages themselves were repetitive and clearly had generated names. Someone ran the entire thing through and reduced the bulk messages down to a handful. I believe there were some attempts to add filler words, but for the most part someone just put together spam bots.
- Natsu 5y ago
  What I don't get is why this is so important. Someone spammed a web form but... this isn't a vote. This is a chance to provide information, which spam by definition does not contain. If they wanted to make legal or technical points, it doesn't even matter who they are, the points are true (or not) no matter who said them. So I just don't see what the big deal is here, because someone spammed meaningless comments into a comment form and it's not like they really took any of our opinions into account when making the ruling to begin with.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    The Chair of the FTC used the number of comments against Net Neutrality as "proof" that people did not want Net Neutrality. He then refused to investigate the obvious forgeries.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Then he released this cringefest: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg
      - lowercased 5y ago
        HOLY CRAP that's insane. Wow, we can still participate in the pop culture of the day that the pop culture czars want us to keep doing? Sweet! If I can still keep doing all these cool things, why the need for repealing the Obama-era regulations (his words) in the first place?
      - toiletfuneral 5y ago
        also starring a pizzagate promoter, which seems a whole lot darker now than it was at the time: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fcc-chairman-video https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fcc-chai...
      - crispyambulance 5y ago
        Ouch. It's disturbing to see a politically nominated official, who is in his position presumably because of world-class leadership and communication ability, be SO OUT OF TOUCH that he doesn't recognize that what he is doing appears as satire. Elections matter.
        edgyquant 5y ago
        Appears? This guy was constantly making jokes and memes and he did so to appeal to the internet trolls that were his base. Right leaning millennials loved this guy; you must not have seen his back and forth with John Oliver over his Reece’s cup. For context https://www.chron.com/national/article/net-neutrality-repeal-Ajit-Pai-FCC-reeses-coffee-12431725.php https://www.chron.com/national/article/net-neutrality-repeal...
    - natch 5y ago
      FCC, but yes. Another demonstration of how election choices have consequences.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      The thing is, I don't for one minute believe that they would've made a different decision if the comments were different. This is just a legally-mandated hoop they jump through before doing what they want to do. For the record, I support the goal of NN, I just am too cynical to believe that these comments ever mattered.
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        They matter because the inevitable lawsuits can/will point to the multitude in support of NN and demand the FCC explain why they decided against keeping it. They’re not just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through; they actually have to consider and weigh them all. A reason of “it’s ‘Obama era’ regulations that we don’t need” isn’t enough. “It’s bad for economic growth” would require them to explain how. Obviously, one that just says “** you Ajit” or whatever doesn’t need to be considered, but ones voicing concerns or similar have to be.
        Natsu 5y ago
        Even if you say that, that just means it's the contents of the comments that matter--not who sent them. So the wrong thing is faked under that analysis. I agree that Ajit made the wrong decision, I just facepalm when I see people raising this as an argument as to why when there are so many better arguments than whether someone spammed an insecure comment box.
- hugey010 5y ago
  This absolutely happened. My parents, who have never heard nor cared about NN, had both their emails used by bots posting anti-NN comments. It was blatantly obvious to anyone who didn't have a stake in killing NN.
  - dandersh 5y ago
    Happened to my wife. All the messages were obviously fake as they would say the exact same thing with a word here or there changed. While I remember it being a big deal in tech news I don't recall it gaining a lot of traction in the establishment press.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      > "I don't recall it gaining a lot of traction in the establishment press." There sure is a lot you don't see in American establishment press. That's the saddest part about Donald Trump's "Fake News TM" - it really is shockingly, unbelievably bad. Seeing otherwise smart people defend CNN et al, just because Trump "attacked" them, is just so gruesome. And let's not forget all the free coverage they gave him, some 20 times what Sanders got. Ah well, sure what can you do :shrug:
  - op00to 5y ago
    My mother, who is dead, somehow rose from the grave and posted in support of repealing NN. That there will be no criminal consequences makes me very, very angry.
    - 54454e44494553 5y ago
      Same thing happened wrt my deceased grandfather. Except instead of posting comments, he voted by mail in ballot in the 2020 presidential election.
- andreilys 5y ago
  I look forward to the GPT-3 Assisted astroturfing campaigns in the future, only a matter of time
  - joshspankit 5y ago
    Hopefully by then we have some sort of anonymous “voting” technology so that each individual can have a vote on all public issues. It’s a pain to hold a referendum now, but if we could answer in 2min on our phones and know that our vote was secure, reliable, and 100% anonymous, we could reshape bureaucracy in an instant.
aaronbrethorst 5y ago
Don't elect blatantly corrupt heads of state (or legislators who would be able to subvert the results of a free and fair election in 2025.)
jliptzin 5y ago
We can stop this blatant corruption by handing a very long federal prison sentence to Mr. Pai. It’s not really that complicated.
- mnouquet 5y ago
  Just wait for the pendulum swing !
- briandear 5y ago
  What law was broken?
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    WHO CARES ANYMORE
betterunix2 5y ago
To be fair, the FCC ignored the automatically generated comments and focused on comments that were unique, detailed, and relevant. The actual scandal should be what they did with those comments: those that supported rolling back the NN rules were accepted as fact, those opposed (i.e. those in favor of NN regulation) were dismissed as "not compelling." I know this because my comment was among those dismissed as "not compelling," including specific sections that dealt strictly with the factual errors in Ajit Pai's proposal. The only reason they bothered citing my comment (and numerous others by actual technical experts who took the time to comment) was to avoid being sued for ignoring the public comments (they are legally required to consider public comments when making a decision). It is also worth mentioning that Ajit Pai differed from his predecessor Tom Wheeler. Wheeler had intended to introduce rules that allowed various NN violations but changed course in response to public comments and went with the stronger regulations. Pai never cared what the public had to say and made that very clear in his public statements, where he basically said that the only thing that would change his mind would be comments concerning the FCC's legal authority (not that there was any serious dispute about that legal authority).
- nickff 5y ago
  These consultations are just legally-mandated hoops that the regulators jump through. The fact that you or another individual put forward an interesting or important comment really doesn’t matter at all, no matter what side you’re on. To be clear, I don't believe Wheeler's statements about his motive for changing course; I think he changed because the administration believed it would be politically advantageous.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    I disagree. Comments cited by the FCC's final report and decision are part of a permanent public record that can be scrutinized, including in lawsuits (such as the one filed by the EFF) and by politicians considering legislative changes in response to regulatory failures. Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details). Also, it may seem hard to believe, but some regulators do actually care and they do pay attention to expert comments that the FCC (or whoever) receives. Sometimes they will invite the author of a well-research comment to meet with their staff and discuss the issue in more depth. The system is not as completely corrupted by money as people sometimes claim (not that there is no corruption at all; it is almost obvious that deep-pocketed corporations have outsized influence in these processes).
rsj_hn 5y ago
I can't imagine anyone believing that there is some grassroots concern about net-neutrality. Ordinary people don't care about this. You and I may care about it, but not the general population. And I only slightly care about it -- say a lot less than copyright extensions but a lot more than hair extensions.
- papito 5y ago
  The level at which the grassroots don't care about anything is not even funny. If Fox News did not talk about this incessantly, and people "cared" about it - something was wrong.

BikiniPrince 5y ago

People had claimed their own email address had been used to post a message. The messages themselves were repetitive and clearly had generated names. Someone ran the entire thing through and reduced the bulk messages down to a handful. I believe there were some attempts to add filler words, but for the most part someone just put together spam bots.

Natsu 5y ago
What I don't get is why this is so important. Someone spammed a web form but... this isn't a vote. This is a chance to provide information, which spam by definition does not contain. If they wanted to make legal or technical points, it doesn't even matter who they are, the points are true (or not) no matter who said them. So I just don't see what the big deal is here, because someone spammed meaningless comments into a comment form and it's not like they really took any of our opinions into account when making the ruling to begin with.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  The Chair of the FTC used the number of comments against Net Neutrality as "proof" that people did not want Net Neutrality. He then refused to investigate the obvious forgeries.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Then he released this cringefest: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg
    - lowercased 5y ago
      HOLY CRAP that's insane. Wow, we can still participate in the pop culture of the day that the pop culture czars want us to keep doing? Sweet! If I can still keep doing all these cool things, why the need for repealing the Obama-era regulations (his words) in the first place?
    - toiletfuneral 5y ago
      also starring a pizzagate promoter, which seems a whole lot darker now than it was at the time: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fcc-chairman-video https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fcc-chai...
    - crispyambulance 5y ago
      Ouch. It's disturbing to see a politically nominated official, who is in his position presumably because of world-class leadership and communication ability, be SO OUT OF TOUCH that he doesn't recognize that what he is doing appears as satire. Elections matter.
      - edgyquant 5y ago
        Appears? This guy was constantly making jokes and memes and he did so to appeal to the internet trolls that were his base. Right leaning millennials loved this guy; you must not have seen his back and forth with John Oliver over his Reece’s cup. For context https://www.chron.com/national/article/net-neutrality-repeal-Ajit-Pai-FCC-reeses-coffee-12431725.php https://www.chron.com/national/article/net-neutrality-repeal...
  - natch 5y ago
    FCC, but yes. Another demonstration of how election choices have consequences.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    The thing is, I don't for one minute believe that they would've made a different decision if the comments were different. This is just a legally-mandated hoop they jump through before doing what they want to do. For the record, I support the goal of NN, I just am too cynical to believe that these comments ever mattered.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      They matter because the inevitable lawsuits can/will point to the multitude in support of NN and demand the FCC explain why they decided against keeping it. They’re not just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through; they actually have to consider and weigh them all. A reason of “it’s ‘Obama era’ regulations that we don’t need” isn’t enough. “It’s bad for economic growth” would require them to explain how. Obviously, one that just says “** you Ajit” or whatever doesn’t need to be considered, but ones voicing concerns or similar have to be.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        Even if you say that, that just means it's the contents of the comments that matter--not who sent them. So the wrong thing is faked under that analysis. I agree that Ajit made the wrong decision, I just facepalm when I see people raising this as an argument as to why when there are so many better arguments than whether someone spammed an insecure comment box.
hugey010 5y ago
This absolutely happened. My parents, who have never heard nor cared about NN, had both their emails used by bots posting anti-NN comments. It was blatantly obvious to anyone who didn't have a stake in killing NN.
- dandersh 5y ago
  Happened to my wife. All the messages were obviously fake as they would say the exact same thing with a word here or there changed. While I remember it being a big deal in tech news I don't recall it gaining a lot of traction in the establishment press.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    > "I don't recall it gaining a lot of traction in the establishment press." There sure is a lot you don't see in American establishment press. That's the saddest part about Donald Trump's "Fake News TM" - it really is shockingly, unbelievably bad. Seeing otherwise smart people defend CNN et al, just because Trump "attacked" them, is just so gruesome. And let's not forget all the free coverage they gave him, some 20 times what Sanders got. Ah well, sure what can you do :shrug:
- op00to 5y ago
  My mother, who is dead, somehow rose from the grave and posted in support of repealing NN. That there will be no criminal consequences makes me very, very angry.
  - 54454e44494553 5y ago
    Same thing happened wrt my deceased grandfather. Except instead of posting comments, he voted by mail in ballot in the 2020 presidential election.
andreilys 5y ago
I look forward to the GPT-3 Assisted astroturfing campaigns in the future, only a matter of time
- joshspankit 5y ago
  Hopefully by then we have some sort of anonymous “voting” technology so that each individual can have a vote on all public issues. It’s a pain to hold a referendum now, but if we could answer in 2min on our phones and know that our vote was secure, reliable, and 100% anonymous, we could reshape bureaucracy in an instant.

aaronbrethorst 5y ago

Don't elect blatantly corrupt heads of state (or legislators who would be able to subvert the results of a free and fair election in 2025.)

jliptzin 5y ago

We can stop this blatant corruption by handing a very long federal prison sentence to Mr. Pai. It’s not really that complicated.

mnouquet 5y ago
Just wait for the pendulum swing !
briandear 5y ago
What law was broken?
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  WHO CARES ANYMORE

betterunix2 5y ago

To be fair, the FCC ignored the automatically generated comments and focused on comments that were unique, detailed, and relevant. The actual scandal should be what they did with those comments: those that supported rolling back the NN rules were accepted as fact, those opposed (i.e. those in favor of NN regulation) were dismissed as "not compelling." I know this because my comment was among those dismissed as "not compelling," including specific sections that dealt strictly with the factual errors in Ajit Pai's proposal. The only reason they bothered citing my comment (and numerous others by actual technical experts who took the time to comment) was to avoid being sued for ignoring the public comments (they are legally required to consider public comments when making a decision). It is also worth mentioning that Ajit Pai differed from his predecessor Tom Wheeler. Wheeler had intended to introduce rules that allowed various NN violations but changed course in response to public comments and went with the stronger regulations. Pai never cared what the public had to say and made that very clear in his public statements, where he basically said that the only thing that would change his mind would be comments concerning the FCC's legal authority (not that there was any serious dispute about that legal authority).

nickff 5y ago
These consultations are just legally-mandated hoops that the regulators jump through. The fact that you or another individual put forward an interesting or important comment really doesn’t matter at all, no matter what side you’re on. To be clear, I don't believe Wheeler's statements about his motive for changing course; I think he changed because the administration believed it would be politically advantageous.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  I disagree. Comments cited by the FCC's final report and decision are part of a permanent public record that can be scrutinized, including in lawsuits (such as the one filed by the EFF) and by politicians considering legislative changes in response to regulatory failures. Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details). Also, it may seem hard to believe, but some regulators do actually care and they do pay attention to expert comments that the FCC (or whoever) receives. Sometimes they will invite the author of a well-research comment to meet with their staff and discuss the issue in more depth. The system is not as completely corrupted by money as people sometimes claim (not that there is no corruption at all; it is almost obvious that deep-pocketed corporations have outsized influence in these processes).

rsj_hn 5y ago

I can't imagine anyone believing that there is some grassroots concern about net-neutrality. Ordinary people don't care about this. You and I may care about it, but not the general population. And I only slightly care about it -- say a lot less than copyright extensions but a lot more than hair extensions.

papito 5y ago
The level at which the grassroots don't care about anything is not even funny. If Fox News did not talk about this incessantly, and people "cared" about it - something was wrong.