5 ms·
80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
- ezekg 5y ago*surprised pikachu face*
- op00to 5y agoMy dead mothers identity was used to spread lies. I was livid then and livid now. This fine doesn’t go nearly far enough.
- blacksmith_tb 5y agoIt's appalling, though the Techcrunch piece doesn't provide the annoying detail that the 19yr-old who submitted 7.7M fakes did it in support of Net Neutrality[1] - with friends like this... 1: https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technology-business-9f10b43b6aacbc750dfc010ceaedaca7 https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technolog...
- dpwm 5y ago> The broadband industry funded the fraudulent creation of about 8.5 million of those, while a 19-year-old college student submitted 7.7 million, and the remainder came from unknown but spurious sources. The article doesn’t explicitly say that the comments funded by the broadband industry were in favour of rolling back net neutrality, so I had to guess on that one too. Thinking about it some more makes me question these assumptions. It seems plausible that putting forward straw-man arguments to be robustly demolished could be a useful tactic to those interested in manipulation.
- belltaco 5y agoIsn't there a law that makes it a crime to knowingly submit false information to the federal government?
- tmaly 5y agoPareto principle at play
- lamp987 5y agonot really, this percentage is coincidence
- jimmygrapes 5y agoI am of the 20% I guess. My argument, which I can go into more (but only on demand: I believe I am shadowbanned so I need some proof otherwise before putting forth such effort), is that the Net Neutrality advocates did not recognize that existing regulation already addresses the concerns.
- bigzyg33k 5y agoI don’t think you’re shadowbanned - at least, I can see your comment
- whateveracct 5y agoeveryone can lmao
- jjeaff 5y agoIf existing regulations already solved the issues, then you wouldn't see existing ISPs giving unlimited data as long as you are using their special pet services or partner services.
- jimmygrapes 5y agoBut not to the explicit exclusion of other data streams, which was the primary concern of most proponents. And the mechanisms for implicitly excluded providers does already exist for them to challenge any such exclusion, were it to be proven.
- jjeaff 5y agoThat wasn't the only concern. If you only give free data for certain services because they are a) already very popular or b) have enough money to pay for it, then you create a huge moat for the incumbents and make it much more difficult for any new, better alternatives to compete.
- yummypaint 5y agoYou are not shadowbanned, people probably just disagree with you
- mint2 5y agoIf someone submits a comment and impersonates you, can they be sued for one of slander/libel/defamation? Can they also be sued for identify theft? If someone can be sued for making a false statement about you, why not when they willfully and knowingly steal your identify to make others believe you did something that you didn’t?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- crumpled 5y agoI've been pondering the problem this plays into. It's likely that at least some portion of the remaining 20% of commenters were influenced by the fakes. Those people could see the techcrunch article as bogus, fake news. I wonder how we can somehow slow (slower than fact) disinfo and test information for credibility. People's GPUs are gonna spin up an information hellscape. Where can I find the solutions that show promise so I can advocate for them? The outlook is depressing.