3 ms·
I haven't come across accusations that pro-NN were systematically submitting fraudulently support comments to the FCC. Absent that, there's no "both sides" argu
by ineedasername 6y ago
I haven't come across accusations that pro-NN were systematically submitting fraudulently support comments to the FCC. Absent that, there's no "both sides" argument here.
- dexen 6y agoThe pro-NN were systematically publishing fraudlent, alarmist opinion pieces in the media. That the channel is different and more dignified (citizen feedback vs big-name publications) doesn't make it any better.
- betterunix2 6y agoActually it makes a big difference, because the FCC has an obligation to consider comments submitted as part of the public comment process.
- ineedasername 6y agoAnti-NN were doing the same, so on that account perhaps they're equally awful. But defrauding the democratic process of public commentary & input into the policy making decisions of a major governmental organization rises to quite a higher level.
- travismark 6y agothe WSJ piece mentions fake comments on both sides (paywall..) https://www.wsj.com/articles/fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-marred-by-millions-of-fake-comments-11620309351 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-ma... "Investigators also found 9.3 million comments supporting net neutrality that used fictitious identities, most submitted by one California college student majoring in computer science."
- ineedasername 6y agoWell, that's pretty awful, and I appreciate the counter point. However, I'd draw a distinction between the actions of a single person that don't equate to the large scale coordinated attacks of the same sort by Anti-NN groups.