3 ms·

> The report said investigators had not found evidence that Broadband for America or the lobbying firm it used for the campaign were aware of the fraud. How co

> The report said investigators had not found evidence that Broadband for America or the lobbying firm it used for the campaign were aware of the fraud. How could they NOT have known? I mean... surely they were seeing these fraudulent comments, and the internet was stirring about it because we all knew they were fraud. Claiming that the ones who paid the fraudsters were unaware seems like a stretch. Did they not look at what they paid for? I find it hard to believe these investigators truly think Broadband for America had no idea.

varispeed 5y ago
If there are no consequences and there is good amount of grease they can see or not see whatever someone wants them to. It's a farce.
whoknew1122 5y ago
> Did they not look at what they paid for? Nope. Plausible deniability is a thing. It's not uncommon corporations and lobbying firm to pay contractors large sums of money for 'image management' and intentional ask no questions about how it gets done. Everyone knows what's happening, but as long as no one explicitly asks (in a documented form), the benefactors can feign innocence. > I find it hard to believe these investigators truly think Broadband for America had no idea. The individual investigators likely know full well that Broadband for America knew what was happening, at least in broad terms. But knowing something and being able to prove it in a legally actionable way are two completely different things.
- Retric 5y ago
  Sort of, you can still nail people for this stuff. It’s just a question of reasonable doubt and what they expect to happen. It’s the same issue as a phone call about having someone assassinated can be a “smoking gun” even if they never say what they want to happen.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Plausible deniability is a thing. It only works if you don't hold actors responsible for consequences, only for knowingly doing wrong. For example, if Tesla cars periodically exploded when the batteries drained to zero, Tesla couldn't say 'well, we didn't know'. Nobody cares; it's your job to know. In fact, it adds to the failure that you didn't know (though knowingly selling that product might not be so hot either - not a perfect example). When does law and regulation require knowledge? When is knowledge part of your responsibility? IMHO, there are civilians and soldiers. The mom & pop convenience store can say 'we didn't know' about some things; Whole Foods, with its resources and expertise, had better know. Personally, when I'm doing something professionally, I never want to say 'I didn't know'. It's embarrassing. Unless it's some oddball thing that isn't even worth thinking about, it's my job to anticipate and to know. 'I didn't know' means 'I wasn't doing my job, and I don't even understand that my responsibility or what it means to be professional.'
- milkytron 5y ago
  I see your point. On the other hand, wouldn't these companies (Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media) that fabricated comments on a federal filing from real people, using their addresses, be guilty of identity theft? Using someone else's identity to influence federal law seems like it would be a crime, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how that would hold up in court.

varispeed 5y ago

If there are no consequences and there is good amount of grease they can see or not see whatever someone wants them to. It's a farce.

whoknew1122 5y ago

> Did they not look at what they paid for? Nope. Plausible deniability is a thing. It's not uncommon corporations and lobbying firm to pay contractors large sums of money for 'image management' and intentional ask no questions about how it gets done. Everyone knows what's happening, but as long as no one explicitly asks (in a documented form), the benefactors can feign innocence. > I find it hard to believe these investigators truly think Broadband for America had no idea. The individual investigators likely know full well that Broadband for America knew what was happening, at least in broad terms. But knowing something and being able to prove it in a legally actionable way are two completely different things.

Retric 5y ago
Sort of, you can still nail people for this stuff. It’s just a question of reasonable doubt and what they expect to happen. It’s the same issue as a phone call about having someone assassinated can be a “smoking gun” even if they never say what they want to happen.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Plausible deniability is a thing. It only works if you don't hold actors responsible for consequences, only for knowingly doing wrong. For example, if Tesla cars periodically exploded when the batteries drained to zero, Tesla couldn't say 'well, we didn't know'. Nobody cares; it's your job to know. In fact, it adds to the failure that you didn't know (though knowingly selling that product might not be so hot either - not a perfect example). When does law and regulation require knowledge? When is knowledge part of your responsibility? IMHO, there are civilians and soldiers. The mom & pop convenience store can say 'we didn't know' about some things; Whole Foods, with its resources and expertise, had better know. Personally, when I'm doing something professionally, I never want to say 'I didn't know'. It's embarrassing. Unless it's some oddball thing that isn't even worth thinking about, it's my job to anticipate and to know. 'I didn't know' means 'I wasn't doing my job, and I don't even understand that my responsibility or what it means to be professional.'
milkytron 5y ago
I see your point. On the other hand, wouldn't these companies (Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media) that fabricated comments on a federal filing from real people, using their addresses, be guilty of identity theft? Using someone else's identity to influence federal law seems like it would be a crime, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how that would hold up in court.