4 ms·

Kind of. They used the comments to show the decision had some supporters, but even with the fakes the majority of comments were in favor of keeping the Obama er

Kind of. They used the comments to show the decision had some supporters, but even with the fakes the majority of comments were in favor of keeping the Obama era net neutrality bylaws. Still, the FCC ended net neutrality. So yes they used the comments to justify their decision, but calling it a "wholesale manipulation of our democracy" is an overstatement as the decision never required democratic consensus.

deathanatos 3y ago
> but even with the fakes the majority of comments were in favor of keeping the Obama era net neutrality bylaws. … no? > The proceeding generated a record-breaking number of comments — more than 22 million — and nearly 18 million were fake, the attorney general’s office found. 81% of the comments were astroturf.
- courseofaction 3y ago
  This should absolutely be jailable.
- retox 3y ago
  This doesn't appear in the article, I'm not doubting it but where is it from?
  - Jedd 3y ago
    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technology-business-9f10b43b6aacbc750dfc010ceaedaca7 https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technolog...
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technology-business-9f10b43b6aacbc750dfc010ceaedaca7 https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technolog... It's the article-within-the-article, linked to at "second series of agreements secured".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  This is what I'm basing that off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Public_commenting_period_and_analysis_of_fraudulent_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... >One of the first studies performed after the closure of the public commenting period, done on behalf of Broadband for America, which sought to repeal the Obama-era rules, found that 60% of the comments were in favor of retaining the current rules..
  - footlose_3815 3y ago
    Wow, net neutrality was killed by a conservative tobacco lobbyist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Individual_Freedom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Individual_Freedo... Bad people get away with everything...
than3 3y ago
It was corruption and fraud, plain and simple, and all of the people involved should be in prison.
somenameforme 3y ago
It doesn't require democratic consensus but the FDA is legally obligated to take public feedback into consideration. [1] Section C: "(c)After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose." The companies generating fake comments were likely doing so precisely to ensure this federal law did not become an issue. The thing that really annoys me about this stuff is not the outcome - the comments in favor of net neutrality were change.org caliber spam for the most part, and so the FCC had every reasonable right to ignore them. It's that these companies did absolutely engage in a conspiracy to "sidestep" federal law, and did so by engaging in defacto identify theft on a massive scale. Conspiracy, a few hundred thousand charges of identity theft, fraud, and more? If an individual did this, they'd be looking at jail for the rest of their life. But these companies do it, and things like this don't even classify as a slap on the wrist. Our legal system is just completely and utterly dysfunctional when it comes to companies. Corporations not only have personhood, but super personhood. They not only get all the rights and privileges of individuals, but seeming immunity from the law, as long as they earn enough money. And it's not only the inequity that bothers me, but the fact that this is clearly and overtly encouraging ever more awful behavior from corporations. Because they have no ethics, and they face no consequences of note. So why not? [1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553
- krisoft 3y ago
  > the comments in favor of net neutrality were change.org caliber spam for the most part, and so the FCC had every reasonable right to ignore them. Just to be clear, it sounds like here you are talking about the comments other than the one discussed in the article? You are saying that the responses in favour of net neutrality (the ones which were proposing to keep the bylaws) were also astroturfed? Or are you saying that they were somehow low in quality in your opinion but still coming from real humans? How do you know this?
  - 3y ago

deathanatos 3y ago

> but even with the fakes the majority of comments were in favor of keeping the Obama era net neutrality bylaws. … no? > The proceeding generated a record-breaking number of comments — more than 22 million — and nearly 18 million were fake, the attorney general’s office found. 81% of the comments were astroturf.

courseofaction 3y ago
This should absolutely be jailable.
retox 3y ago
This doesn't appear in the article, I'm not doubting it but where is it from?
- Jedd 3y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technology-business-9f10b43b6aacbc750dfc010ceaedaca7 https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technolog...
- deathanatos 3y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technology-business-9f10b43b6aacbc750dfc010ceaedaca7 https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-technolog... It's the article-within-the-article, linked to at "second series of agreements secured".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 3y ago
This is what I'm basing that off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Public_commenting_period_and_analysis_of_fraudulent_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... >One of the first studies performed after the closure of the public commenting period, done on behalf of Broadband for America, which sought to repeal the Obama-era rules, found that 60% of the comments were in favor of retaining the current rules..
- footlose_3815 3y ago
  Wow, net neutrality was killed by a conservative tobacco lobbyist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Individual_Freedom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Individual_Freedo... Bad people get away with everything...

than3 3y ago

It was corruption and fraud, plain and simple, and all of the people involved should be in prison.

somenameforme 3y ago

It doesn't require democratic consensus but the FDA is legally obligated to take public feedback into consideration. [1] Section C: "(c)After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose." The companies generating fake comments were likely doing so precisely to ensure this federal law did not become an issue. The thing that really annoys me about this stuff is not the outcome - the comments in favor of net neutrality were change.org caliber spam for the most part, and so the FCC had every reasonable right to ignore them. It's that these companies did absolutely engage in a conspiracy to "sidestep" federal law, and did so by engaging in defacto identify theft on a massive scale. Conspiracy, a few hundred thousand charges of identity theft, fraud, and more? If an individual did this, they'd be looking at jail for the rest of their life. But these companies do it, and things like this don't even classify as a slap on the wrist. Our legal system is just completely and utterly dysfunctional when it comes to companies. Corporations not only have personhood, but super personhood. They not only get all the rights and privileges of individuals, but seeming immunity from the law, as long as they earn enough money. And it's not only the inequity that bothers me, but the fact that this is clearly and overtly encouraging ever more awful behavior from corporations. Because they have no ethics, and they face no consequences of note. So why not? [1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553

krisoft 3y ago
> the comments in favor of net neutrality were change.org caliber spam for the most part, and so the FCC had every reasonable right to ignore them. Just to be clear, it sounds like here you are talking about the comments other than the one discussed in the article? You are saying that the responses in favour of net neutrality (the ones which were proposing to keep the bylaws) were also astroturfed? Or are you saying that they were somehow low in quality in your opinion but still coming from real humans? How do you know this?
- 3y ago