
More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked - sus_007
https://hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6
======
stretchwithme
How we express our opinions in a democracy needs to re-engineered. It needs to
be secure and it needs to matter. Comments anybody can make and that are
easily ignored are relatively useless.

The powers that be aren't going to fix this. If the voters had real, direct
power, the lobbyists would not. And you can't put the voters' money directly
into your pocket.

So we have to do it. We need to create an open-source, secure and low cost
solution that shadows an existing state legislature and does a superior job
for the voters.

And California is the perfect state for it. Let the voters decide the issues
or let them "elect" anyone in the state to exercise their vote for them. Use
proportional representation. Vote any time. Elect any time.

Once this system is proven, voters can decide whether to DUMP the California
State Assembly and let the State Senate create and debate all the bills. Then
we make it work for all those who can't use or that don't trust the Internet.

Once adopted, the same system can be rolled out in other states and maybe some
day it will replace the House of Representatives.

People have to see it work small before they trust it big.

~~~
halflings
I would not say that something applied in California, state with the largest
population, is an example of "work small before they trust it big".

Are you proposing a direct democracy system where the regular election cycle
for representatives is obsolete, and people directly vote on issues and/or can
elect new representatives at any time?

~~~
stretchwithme
Yes.

This breaks down the concentration of power while still enabling people to
hand off this task to a trusted delegate. Anybody that is qualified to hold
office. Or it could even be a representative from the other house.

And you could change who you delegate to any time. Instead of thinking they
have a mandate for 4 years, the amount of power a representative actually has
would go up and down over time. He or she could be out of power overnight if
the voters lose faith.

Of course, the Senate would still work the old way.

~~~
filoeleven
This is delegative democracy, and I’ve been thinking about how to try to get
this implemented too.

Rather than trying to push it at the state level, which still seems a pretty
high barrier for entry, I’m wondering if it’s possible to run as some kind of
state or local representative, something like city council, and set up a
system so that the rep’s constituents are the ones using it to inform their
rep of their wishes. They’d use an app or site to vote on things known to be
coming up in the chamber, delegates could make public statements about them.
The representative could run either on a platform of “I will be bound by how
my constituency votes” or “I will not be bound, but I better give you a damn
good reason to vote contrary to my constituency if I want to be elected
again.”

DemocracyOS and other open source tools are starting to appear that should
make the implementation of any number of these systems fairly easy, though of
course there’s still security and ID verification to contend with.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy)

~~~
stretchwithme
The ID verification is a challenge. We have vote-by-mail here in California
and have dead people still voting.

I would have some annual re-qualification system, like maybe video comparison.
You record a video when you register and another each year speaking about a
specific current event and the system could compare the two and make sure the
current event is correct.

Needless to repeat, but we'd also need methods for handling exceptions. Nobody
should be denied use of the system because they cannot figure out how to use
it or don't have a computer or smart phone.

~~~
filoeleven
I was thinking along the lines of in-app ID verification when I wrote that,
seems you are too, but it occurs to me that you have to go to a building in
order to register to vote as it stands today. That piece could still exist,
with alternatives like the one you suggest being made available as they are
vetted.

Public libraries, schools, courthouses, post offices could all be access
points that would let folks without devices participate. With the right setup,
UX for both voting on things and for choosing delegates should be not much
more complicated than what a ballot looks like today, and yes, someone should
be available to help those who are having trouble with it.

You mentioned that the system is waiting for a good use case, and I agree.
That’s what makes it very attractive to start at the state level despite the
difficulty: people can have a bigger, more tangible impact than what you would
get at city scale. I wonder if the best way to get started at that level is by
creating a new political party whose candidates are constrained in their votes
(but not in any legislation they propose) by how their constituents are
responding. Recognizing that elected reps will have their own opinions and
should be free to voice them, but bringing in the delegative structure beneath
them as a binding principle of the party. It seems like it would help with
mindshare/awareness if it was a widespread phenomenon instead of one random
city councilman’s platform.

~~~
stretchwithme
Great ideas.

A party devoted to reflecting the wishes of all the citizens would be great.

This could be a major plank in a new party, along with many other intelligent
goals.

------
dangrossman
I got a bunch of emails from senators thanking me for contacting them this
week... before I had contacted any of them. Who knows what was said in my
name.

~~~
avs733
I would report that to them, report that to the Sergeant at Arms for the US
Congress (because hey...that seems like a CFAA violation using their computer
system), and your state attorney general.

Being angry accomplishes nothing, being noisy accomplishes a little. being
FUCKING ANNOYING and ever present accomplishes marginally but meaningfully
more.

~~~
cirgue
> being noisy accomplishes a little

And a bunch of people being noisy accomplishes a surprising amount, if you can
be noisy in the right channels.

~~~
pdkl95
Also, it's almost always important to be _persistently_ noisy. A single noise
event (or even a handful) can be - and often is - ignored.

Silence is insidious because even after a very noisy scandal, silence
eventually _normalizes the status quo_. The only way to counter this - and be
seen as a real issue that needs to be addressed - is to be noisy in the right
channels _every time_ the problem happens, with the noise continuing until the
problem is actually fixed.

Protesting, letter writing, and political action in general is not a one time
event. It's a force that needs to be continuously applied.

~~~
avs733
This is a much more articulate version of what I posted and should be taken
very seriously.

The reason citizen movements so often lose out is because they are able to
gather momentum for a one time event, but they are fighting against group with
paid staff (not a slight just a reality) who do this full time. They are there
on the same message every day.

I have worked with several activist groups that can't get the 'on message'
part down and can't figure out how to apply it consistently and clearly. The
same ideas about vision->strategy->tactics applies the same to activism as it
does to a startup.

It's the different between the grand canyon and a really big rainstorm.

------
dingo_bat
FCC has explicitly said that they have ignored any opinion comments. They have
only considered comments which bring new facts or a legal opinion. So the fact
that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway.

~~~
snuxoll
Which would hopefully bite them in the ass if I had any faith in a Trump-
appointed judicial branch. The FCC is required to take public comments into
account when making regulations, this should be a fairly straightforward
lawsuit.

~~~
indubitable
Taking comments into account is different than simply having an opt-in vote
which translates to who's e-petition can go the most viral (and let's not even
get into fraud). And this is very much a good thing. In this case, even if I
might agree with having some issue with net neutrality being repealed - I
think most people have no clue at all what's going on and are voting based on
fear mongering and sensationalism.

For instance, what percent of people could explain why Pai thinks repealing
net neutrality is a good idea? Most seem to think he's just some Trump
appointee selling out the highest bidder. In fact he's been arguing for a path
of deregulation for years, even before he was appointed to the FCC by _Obama_
5 years ago.

I tend to debate against the masses on this issue simply because I think we're
acting like a mob instead of a rational collective. And even if we may be
getting it right on this issue, mob mentality is something that should never
be condoned - even if you side with them on an issue.

~~~
mrgordon
I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I
can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments
by him. His most clear argument is that it will somehow increase investments
into ISP infrastructure (citing, I think, what happened in Portugal) while he
simultaneously says we have no way to know what effects repealing it will have
until we try it. Meanwhile a million people have shared the images of the
bucketed plans from Portugal charging $9.99 extra for social networking and
things like that.

The man is totally full of BS.

As for your comment that he was an Obama appointee, he was actually selected
by Mitch McConnell but I know it’s a common trope to blame everything on
Obama.

“Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and
is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather,
there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners,
since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at
the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican —
Obama was sticking to that tradition.”

~~~
rhino369
All your reasons for impugning his integrity boil down to you disagree with
him. That is narrow minded.

Pai (and many economists) believe a double sided market could increase
potential profits which would incentive investment so ISPs could provide a
"fast lane." That isn't "somehow." They thought about and have a reason for
believing what they believe.

You can disagree but that doesn't make them hitler.

~~~
mrgordon
No actually very few of my reasons for pointing out his lack of integrity have
to do with simple disagreement on policy. I would try not to label people as
narrow minded based on one short comment on the Internet. This community
normally does a better job of not immediately devolving into personal attacks
especially when you didn’t even ask what my reasons for disliking him are.

Read a much more in depth analysis in one of my other comments of his
transformation of the FCC into a partisan agency, his attacks on poor people
through the Lifeline program, as well as his close ties to Verizon which
create a direct conflict of interest:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781535](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781535)

Not to even mention the post that started this thread about how Pai has
accepted over a million fake comments on net neutrality from the telecom/ISP
industries’ astroturfer lobbyists while refusing to provide enough information
for NY to look into the matter (or investigating themselves)

There are people playing devil’s advocate for Pai’s views but how many people
actually seem to strongly want these changes? Have you met any who don’t work
for Comcast, Verizon, etc.? I honestly have not

------
everdev
Just like the election, I wonder if the people behind this care if they get
caught as long as they get what they want first. There doesn't seem to be much
precedent for overturning laws or elections that were subject to
misinformation campaigns.

~~~
brudgers
[I am not a lawyer]

Only Congress passes laws (statutes). The FCC is a regulatory body. It has
statutory authority (delegated by Congress) to create regulations, not
statutes (laws). Proposed FCC regulations have to go through a process defined
by statute. Publication and comment are part of that process. Irregularities
in the process may form the basis of judicial challenge. Whether what is
described here constitutes an irregularity is another matter.

Regulations may have the force of a law, but don't receive the same level of
judicial deference in terms of intent. If Congress were to a law to explicitly
end net neutrality, the courts would have to assume that the law is the will
of the people and a challenge could only be made on Constitutional grounds. An
FCC regulation can also be challenged on legal grounds (the regulation
violates a statute).

~~~
winter_blue
> Regulations may have the force of a law, but don't receive the same level of
> judicial deference in terms of intent.

Yes, statutory laws must be proven unconstitutional to be struck down, and
regulatory laws _can_ be more easily affected by judicial decisions. But for
the last 30 years, regulations have been accorded an inappropriate degree of
deference by the courts: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/03/25/gorsuch-is-right-about-chevron-deference/)

~~~
alacombe
If "anti net-neutrality" regulations shall be considered unconstitutional, so
shall "pro net-neutrality" ones.

[edit: instead of downvoting me, tell me why left-leaning regulations are
automatically Good (and constitutional), and why right-leaning are
automatically Evil (and unconstitutional) ?]

~~~
existencebox
I'll take the bait and explain why I'm downvoting you.

The parent posts had literally nothing to do with left vs right. It has to do
with accepting the results of misinformation campaigns, and post-factum not
taking steps to revert malign legislation.

Even in the case that I give you the benefit of the doubt in that you're
taking "pro-net-neutrality" to be in some way left-leaning, the bulk of the
arguments I've read fall into the "empiricism" bucket rather than
"partisanship," either citing precedent of negative outcomes (portugal) or the
industry's proven inability to self-regulate (local monopolies ala comcast,
fights against municipal broadband, etc).

I'm also somewhat entertained that maintaining a competitive business
landscape has somehow become "leftist." To my mind that's very pro-small-
business/free market to prohibit large entities from soley dominating a market
and legislating protective walls; even Reagan took an aggressive antitrust
stance; this not even touching on that internet looks a lot more like a
utility necessary for "survival" in a modern world than a good nowadays.

------
jeffdavis
The centralization of the web is what worries me. I suppose non-neutral net
can contribute to that, but even with a neutral net we've seen extraordinary
centralization around a few major sites. Will neutrality really save us?

~~~
matt4077
It might not be enough to create exactly the net you want. But yes, net
neutrality is strictly better for decentralisation than the alternative.

That is because neutrality creates a (somewhat) level playing field. Without
it, Facebook could, theoretically, pay Comcast to slow down a new competitor
that is just emerging.

I say "theoretically", because such an action, if taken overtly, would
probably still run afoul of competition law. But there will be other, more
subtle, ways to achieve similar results. I would expect the result to be worse
for data-heavy and latency-sensitive applications, as well as anything using a
non-standard protocol (i. e. peer-to-peer networking etc).

It's possible, although not certain, that current service levels might remain
accessible for new startups. But any future improvements would be tied to
signing contracts with any provider whose customers any new startup would want
to reach. Prices will tend to be exactly the value of these customers to the
startup, minus one cent–or as close to that as can be measured.

~~~
manquer
They don't need to _slow_ anyone down. They just need to be faster or better
connected with the end users with lesser connection drops etc. This __all
__the major players already do with their private networks and CDNs and
servers at a global PoPs. No startup without serious muscle can compete with
that .

In the same vine major players also built and own dedicated DCs , hardware and
networking equipment and locate it all over the world, new players can't
compete possibly with that anyway.

There has never been any level playing field, New players are nimble and more
risk friendly and do not have the baggage of existing users , older players
have resource advantage and may need to choose between cannibalizing current
users for new areas of growth or avoiding the segment all together.

~~~
bshacklett
Could you elaborate? It's very easy for a startup, or even a single person to
get a CDN distribution up and running with global points of presence, though I
don't have much knowledge of the private networks you refer to.

~~~
manquer
The depth and number of pops that Google and Facebook have is way better,
commerical cdns give you some foothold but are not in the same league at all.

For example every small isp all over the world will most likely have YouTube
caching servers running on their infra likely for free because letting Google
do that saves them considerable upstream bandwidth both isp and google
benefit, whereas you and I pay .10 to .20 per GB for CDN

------
lettergram
It's times like these where an actual - in person protest - might be more
effective.

~~~
avs733
I posted this last week and stand by it...

A small counter suggestion. I know we all tend to be introverted but...go
visit your reps. Visit them in DC, visit them in their offices in your area.
Most will be home this week for thanksgiving and almost all will be home over
the holiday break. Email them to schedule a meeting or call. Make them explain
this to your face.

I tried this and after five emails have meetings with my rep and both my
senators scheduled less than a week out.

------
bufferoverflow
Every social media website is dominated by people supporting net neutrality. I
don't even remember seeing an opposing opinion, except from Trump's
government. Maybe I'm living in some weird bubble, but it seems to me the
argument is really not an argument, but an artificially created nonsense.

~~~
keypress
I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the
network?

This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A.
[http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-
boasts-37-...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-
boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-
apples-itunes)

It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage
company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful
as envisaged.

~~~
downandout
Everyone worries about slippery slopes, but I think that limits should exist.
Perhaps if you are consuming more than 10% of Internet’s bandwidth, you
_should_ have to pay some kind of tax to ISP’s, and those funds should then be
required to be reinvested in the network to make it more reliable or increase
bandwidth. That seems like it would be an all-around win.

~~~
nkristoffersen
Bandwidth isn't free. You pay for it, I pay for it, Google pays for it,
Netflix pays for it, everyone pays for it.

Bandwidth is what we pay for. Net neutrality does not mean we get bandwidth
for free. People who use more bandwidth have to buy more bandwidth already.

~~~
downandout
These services that drive massive _increases_ in bandwidth demand are the
services I’m talking about. The demand for Netflix, for example, has required
investment on the part of ISPs to support. Most residential cable broadband
systems weren’t designed with these kinds of constant bandwidth demands in
mind. So Netflix gets to grow, while ISPs face massively increased investment,
lest their networks will be overrun. Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute
to the increased investment that they are benefitting from?

~~~
DiThi
> The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of
> ISPs to support.

So the ISP were overselling bandwidth?

> Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute to the increased investment that
> they are benefitting from?

They do. Netflix give CDN boxes to ISPs for free. They contribute by saving
the ISPs all that external bandwidth (which is what they oversell).

------
cmurf
Worse, the FCC has evidence the NY state attorney general needs to investigate
and prosecute these fake submissions as identity theft, but the FCC refuses to
acknowledge the NY AG at all, let alone assist. At the least it makes the FCC
look servile, and at worst complicit.

------
adamnemecek
What needs to happen for shit like this not to happen anymore.

~~~
torpfactory
Get money out of politics. No more superPACs. No more third party bullshit.

My proposal: only contributions from individuals to official campaign
organizations. Each person can donate a total of $100, split any way they
want.

I’m tired of so many decisions being made at the behest of some campaign
funder whispering in a politician’s ear. Our democracy is being corroded by
all this money.

~~~
strictnein
Your solution has a clear result: only the wealthiest would be able to run for
office.

~~~
alacombe
Given the money spent during campaigns, it's already the case. Only the
wealthiest are able to run for office. You'll never see a Billy Boy Blow run
for president while being a blue collar. That being said, it's important to
highlight that most democrat elected in the past were lawyers, while
republicans came from business background.

------
daveheq
How many fake ones were pro-net neutrality? I could see Russia writing fake
ones to disrupt things... And then there will be the rise of the bot wars
(Ender's Game was prophetic!).

------
ivv
The "mail-merge" the article refers to is also known as "spinning".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_spinning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_spinning)

------
dreamache
Down with net neutrality. It's just another government program that the very
top tech companies love, because it helps squash competition. Open and free
markets are always superior.

------
randyrand
Does the FCC take copy pasted online comments seriously to being with? This
seems like the stupidest way to decide legislation.

------
jarym
Cripes. Ajit Pai must badly be wanting to compete against Martin Shkreli as
most despised man in America.

Shkreli ended up in a jump suit (no doubt picking up soap frequently). Is Pai
next?

------
retox
There was also a lot of direct copypaste spam on the pro-NN side

[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*Sc4-R2waeRrGnNL90...](https://cdn-
images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*Sc4-R2waeRrGnNL90dO3JA.png)

~~~
colejohnson66
I’m sure a lot of the pro duplicates are from websites that help the person
post a comment, but they just use the form comment instead of adding their own
stuff.

~~~
Alterlife
Wouldn't this logic apply to the anti nn side as well?

------
grecy
So many in the tech community support Net Neutrality, it's always shocked me
that more people don't build bots to submit comments like the opposition do.

Surely the tech community could easily submit a few billion (trillion?) legit-
looking comments in support of Net Neutrality that would a) completely cripple
the servers or b) produce so much spam that it overwhelms anything useful and
all comments are ignored....

why not?

~~~
malux85
Because so many comments would be instantly recognized as spam. The Anti-Net-
Neutrality side would then use that as a narrative that all NN arguments are
fake and draw even more stupid conclusions like "This is why we're right".
They would spin it to play to their narrative.

The best way is to get as many real people as possible to make as much noise
as possible.

------
droopybuns
I don’t believe that botnet activity has been limited to one side, based on
how reddit has looked this last week.

Example of suspicious postings:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/7engpr/image_reddi...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/7engpr/image_reddit_united_against_net_neutrality/)

~~~
d23
How are those suspicious? It's an issue redditors care a lot about. A lot of
those posts were done by moderators in their respective communities and don't
appear to be copied and pasted content. It looks from the screengrab like you
upvoted them too...

~~~
droopybuns
Not my screengrab.

That is a post in frisson where someone is posting a pic that supposedly will
generate frisson. There is clearly a campaign to post subreddit themed
references to the topic.

The vote counts seem aberrant to me as well.

------
IncRnd
I'm glad that this is being brought up.

However, duplicated comments are not necessarily faked. For instance, there
are many times centralized campaigns that people can sign onto for sending
messages. The messages from those, while identical, are proper and what the
individuals believe.

This happens on both sides of issues. So, please continue to investigate, but
be careful you don't interject your own biases into your investigation.

~~~
nadaviv
The messages the post points out to are not duplicates, though. They have a
very similar meaning, but uses entirely different wording so that they won't
appear duplicates. In other words, someone went through the trouble of trying
to cloak the fact that they're duplicates.

~~~
IncRnd
> The messages the post points out to are not duplicates, though.

There were two separate categories from the article. This is text from the
article, "The vast majority of FCC comments were submitted as exact duplicates
or as part of letter-writing/spam campaigns."

