5 ms·

The actual document - https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/oag-fakecommentsreport.pdf https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/oag-fakecommentsreport... > The OA

by speff 2y ago

The actual document - https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/oag-fakecommentsreport.pdf https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/oag-fakecommentsreport... > The OAG has not found evidence, however, that the broadband companies that funded and organized these lead generators had direct knowledge of fraud.

CatWChainsaw 2y ago
After living so long with complete bullshit coming out of tech and finance sectors, I'm less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume it's a "don't say anything if you can just wink" kind of "no direct knowledge" situation.
- speff 2y ago
  There’s no evidence that can be provided to change that mindset
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    Should there be? A single example isn't going to change a prevailing trend. If laws change to by and large hold companies responsible and make them liable for their outsourced ethical violations, the mindset will gradually change. IMHO, this is good. Companies should take proactive effort to make sure that their suppliers behave ethically out of a fear they will be held responsible for any violations.
  - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    And if it actually happened the way I described, with a wink, there exists no evidence that it happened - yet it did. And that itself would be evidence that this mindset of mine has validity. Trust is like a vase. It takes a lot of time and effort to make one. It takes a lot less time and effort to break one. And even if you fix it, you'll always be able to see the cracks.
  - barryrandall 2y ago
    There is, but it "doesn't scale." That evidence is an established track record as an ethical and trustworthy participant in the marketplace. But that takes forever, success isn't guaranteed, and the ROI is worse than just screwing people over.
  - hobs 2y ago
    Sure there is, a system created for all that benefits all. Since we're so far from that its laughable, we can consider the evidence not provided.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Alupis 2y ago
  When it comes to voting in elections - we discard this type of article/headline with careless disregard. But when it comes to net neutrality, suddenly it's believable despite lacking evidence? This particular AG has made a name for herself by being sensationalist and partisan. This is likely just more pandering... > All told, the investigation found that nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million comments the FCC received in its 2017 proceeding to repeal net neutrality rules were fake. About 8.5 million of those comments were sent by people who simply didn’t exist. Many, however, simply used the names of real people without their knowledge. Not finding a person's name doesn't mean that wasn't a human that submitted the comment. It's an online form - people will do things to remain anonymous, including making up names. I'm afraid this is evidence of nothing.
  - op00to 2y ago
    My dead mother submitted a comment in favor of Comcast and against Net Neutrality. Anyone involved in this is trash and should have to experience someone abusing the memory of their dead loved ones.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      It's far more likely someone typed a random name into the form that happened to have been your mother's versus obtained a list of dead people and wrote their names - isn't it? There's no identity check for submitting the comment form. It's as simple as lying on the form. > in favor of Comcast and against Net Neutrality Also, let's not make up stories about this issue.
      - op00to 2y ago
        It’s the truth. Family name is unique in the US. Other than my family, there are no other people with this surname in the SS death rolls. Your behavior is not desirable here. Stop attacking people who don’t share your world view.
        Alupis 2y ago
banannaise 2y ago
There's precedent in other places (UDAAP) that a company is responsible for fuckery done on its behalf whether or not it directly ordered or even has direct knowledge of said fuckery. We need more corporate regulations in that vein. It should be impossible to outsource regulatory or legal risk. Outsourcing should subject you to a greater burden of oversight, not less.
- eli 2y ago
  Doesn't that enable framing your opponent with intentionally sloppy fake comments? Happens in the black hat SEO world all the time.
  - banannaise 2y ago
    This is why you keep a paper trail of who you've hired and have them keep a paper trail of what they've done. You can show what you've done and what you haven't! You could engineer some sort of conspiracy to keep specific misbehavior off the paper trail, but that's difficult. Increasing the difficulty of cheating is a good thing.

by speff 2y ago

CatWChainsaw 2y ago

After living so long with complete bullshit coming out of tech and finance sectors, I'm less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume it's a "don't say anything if you can just wink" kind of "no direct knowledge" situation.

speff 2y ago
There’s no evidence that can be provided to change that mindset
- shkkmo 2y ago
  Should there be? A single example isn't going to change a prevailing trend. If laws change to by and large hold companies responsible and make them liable for their outsourced ethical violations, the mindset will gradually change. IMHO, this is good. Companies should take proactive effort to make sure that their suppliers behave ethically out of a fear they will be held responsible for any violations.
- CatWChainsaw 2y ago
  And if it actually happened the way I described, with a wink, there exists no evidence that it happened - yet it did. And that itself would be evidence that this mindset of mine has validity. Trust is like a vase. It takes a lot of time and effort to make one. It takes a lot less time and effort to break one. And even if you fix it, you'll always be able to see the cracks.
- barryrandall 2y ago
  There is, but it "doesn't scale." That evidence is an established track record as an ethical and trustworthy participant in the marketplace. But that takes forever, success isn't guaranteed, and the ROI is worse than just screwing people over.
- hobs 2y ago
  Sure there is, a system created for all that benefits all. Since we're so far from that its laughable, we can consider the evidence not provided.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Alupis 2y ago
When it comes to voting in elections - we discard this type of article/headline with careless disregard. But when it comes to net neutrality, suddenly it's believable despite lacking evidence? This particular AG has made a name for herself by being sensationalist and partisan. This is likely just more pandering... > All told, the investigation found that nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million comments the FCC received in its 2017 proceeding to repeal net neutrality rules were fake. About 8.5 million of those comments were sent by people who simply didn’t exist. Many, however, simply used the names of real people without their knowledge. Not finding a person's name doesn't mean that wasn't a human that submitted the comment. It's an online form - people will do things to remain anonymous, including making up names. I'm afraid this is evidence of nothing.
- op00to 2y ago
  My dead mother submitted a comment in favor of Comcast and against Net Neutrality. Anyone involved in this is trash and should have to experience someone abusing the memory of their dead loved ones.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    It's far more likely someone typed a random name into the form that happened to have been your mother's versus obtained a list of dead people and wrote their names - isn't it? There's no identity check for submitting the comment form. It's as simple as lying on the form. > in favor of Comcast and against Net Neutrality Also, let's not make up stories about this issue.
    - op00to 2y ago
      It’s the truth. Family name is unique in the US. Other than my family, there are no other people with this surname in the SS death rolls. Your behavior is not desirable here. Stop attacking people who don’t share your world view.
      - Alupis 2y ago

banannaise 2y ago

There's precedent in other places (UDAAP) that a company is responsible for fuckery done on its behalf whether or not it directly ordered or even has direct knowledge of said fuckery. We need more corporate regulations in that vein. It should be impossible to outsource regulatory or legal risk. Outsourcing should subject you to a greater burden of oversight, not less.

eli 2y ago
Doesn't that enable framing your opponent with intentionally sloppy fake comments? Happens in the black hat SEO world all the time.
- banannaise 2y ago
  This is why you keep a paper trail of who you've hired and have them keep a paper trail of what they've done. You can show what you've done and what you haven't! You could engineer some sort of conspiracy to keep specific misbehavior off the paper trail, but that's difficult. Increasing the difficulty of cheating is a good thing.