
Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality - sagitariusrex
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/11255938512/dead-people-mysteriously-support-fccs-attack-net-neutrality.shtml
======
khazhou
This makes sense, actually. Dead people tend to be older, and have less stake
in newer bandwidth-intensive applications.

~~~
yebyen
It makes sense, until you go search the comment database for your family
members and find out how many of them have nearly identical opinions in
support of repealing Title II.

This site[1] will help you search the database. I read a number of comments
that start out with some variation of "The unprecedented regulatory power the
Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation,
damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal
Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the
internet known as Title II..."

It's amazing how many people spontaneously had the same opinion on a handful
of days in May and July this year! /s

[1]: [https://www.comcastroturf.com/](https://www.comcastroturf.com/)

Edit: You were making a joke, weren't you... (woosh)

------
tabtab
Being we've had foreign governments messing with our democracy using social
media and hacking, this should be fully investigated. I'm not claiming they
are interfering, only saying we should rule out the possibility using our best
forensics.

~~~
curiousgal
>messing with our democracy

The U.S. has had a flawed democracy regardless of foreign meddling. Americans
do not even elect their president directly.

Edit:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Inde...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Index_by_country_.282016.29)

~~~
GCU-Empiricist
>Americans do not even elect their president directly.

This is a design feature, not a bug. The founding fathers would close your
trouble ticket citing the federalist papers.

~~~
anigbrowl
Much as I like the Federalist papers, the idea that the last word on
governance was written >200 years ago is foolish. After all, the founding
fathers didn't believe in concepts like universal suffrage or standing armies,
and yet here we are with both. I wish people would stop citing them like some
sort of religious authorities instead of just relatively wise men whose ideas
worked well in an earlier era but have since been fetishized to the point of
irrationality.

Personally I want to get rid of representative government as soon as possible
and move towards a participatory model instead.

------
Schizotypy
Why doesn't someone do the same thing but for net neutrality? Just make a bot
to spam with fake or dead names in favor of neutrality to balance it out. The
FCC apparently won't do anything either way so why not

~~~
sounds
This is a technically creative approach, and I think the internet's future is
unfortunately going to be something like this.

But I for one would rather take the high road. Please call your senator(s) and
representative(s) and let them know how upset this all is making you!

~~~
ShabbosGoy
How about ditching Web 2.0 entirely? It's time to head to Web 3.0, an era
where the Internet will be truly decentralized and free.

~~~
hinkley
So we are talking about people pretending to be people they aren’t, and your
solution is decentralize the whole thing?

------
excalibur
> However, if you go to his house on 11 Tee Pee Row, you will unfortunately
> speak to a kind person who will tell you that John has been passed away
> since 2016 and no one else there has the same name.

This is my new favorite name for a residential street.

~~~
twothamendment
I'm partial to Five Card Draw. The street, not the game. Now how do I get dead
people to vote for things I want?

~~~
__jal
Easy! Browse this database to select the telecom firm you find most compatible
with your ethical standards:

[https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/issuesum.php?id=TEC](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/issuesum.php?id=TEC)

Drill down to find a list of firms who can recruit dead people and random
special interests (see here from some of the interest groups who will rent you
their outrage: [http://stopthecap.com/2009/10/02/special-report-astroturf-
ov...](http://stopthecap.com/2009/10/02/special-report-astroturf-overload-
broadband-for-america-one-giant-industry-front-group/) ).

Handily enough, you also get an idea of what it costs right on Open Secrets. I
wish medical price lists were this easy, and I bet there are some dead people
who think so, too.

------
antisthenes
It is fairly clear at this point that FCC as an agency is a captive of
business interests.

It should be treated as openly hostile to the interests of the general public.

~~~
r00fus
You might say that of most governmental agencies and the Congress as well.

The U$ is an oligarchy in all but name.

------
nnfy
I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that
part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs
as title ii common carriers.

These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should
you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad
obscenity laws.

I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing "offense"
or transmitting "obscene" material gives the federal government an excuse to
prosecute you.

Suddenly, posting on 4chan can get you thrown in prison.

Edit: found it[0], I dont understand why no one is aware of this. I plead that
you take a moment to check the link, as this is a dangerous extension of
government power, especially in combination with current surveillence.

[0][https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223)

~~~
GauntletWizard
I've been trying to tell people this for a while - I do believe in net
neutrality, but the title II classification is a boondoggle, and those laws
need serious rewrite. I'm not seriously concerned about getting arrested for
downloading pornography - When was the last time you heard of someone getting
arrested for shouting "Fuck!" over the phone? - But I am concerned that those
laws were written for Bell Telephone, and survived the breakup and re-
integration of the Baby Bells. I don't think they're at all a good fit for how
the internet works.

~~~
nnfy
These laws are dangerous because they are vague enough to give the government
a free pass to legally target almost anyone who uses the internet.

It is another means to possibly silence whistleblowers and/or opposition.

~~~
moron4hire
Except these laws already apply to every other form of media and they aren't
being used to silence whistleblowers or political opposition.

The sky is not falling.

~~~
nnfy
"Every other form of media" is not the same as the media on the internet,
where individuals create the media.

More importantly, why would you want the federal government to have such
abusable power? The sky may not be falling now, but that is no excuse to do
nothing while our freedoms are eroded.

~~~
moron4hire
It's not absolute power, as evidenced by the fact that it hasn't been absolute
power.

------
charred_toast
Can we acknowledge we live in a dystopian era yet? What further has to happen?

~~~
peeters
If we're in a dystopian era, that must be in comparison to something. What era
was, on the balance of factors, better than today?

~~~
labster
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. It is the age of
rationalists, it is the age of complete morons in government. It is the epoch
of incredulity, it is the epoch of fake news.

------
tryingagainbro
After saying that, yeah, an investigation is due...maybe laws were broken, but
I can say that I used a dead person name as a way to be anon.

In the end this should not matter, FCC is not running a vote. If they count
pro /against this way then it's their problem. Arguments should be the only
deciding factor.

~~~
thephyber
> In the end this should not matter, FCC is not running a vote.

Perhaps. But would you expect the FCC to actually sift through millions of
stuffed comments just to get to the few good ones?

By stuffing the system with trash comments, the submitters effectively
guaranteed that the FCC won't bother to read any of the comments.

~~~
tryingagainbro
They are, say 5 interest groups on the corp side and 5 known consumer
organizations, each with their own connections and lobbyists.

FCC will get their POV and virtually every good argument, especially in such a
major case. The "send your comment" is essentially a sham, making us think we
have a voice (that matters)

------
upofadown
Well if dead people can come up with insightful comments, then great. These
are comments, not votes. Once all the possible ideas have been presented,
there is no point in further comments.

In the end only actual politics matters. If you want to do a petition then do
a partition. If you want to complain then target a politician.

~~~
tabtab
But what if the FCC is counting the quantity of citizens making a given point
when deciding? In that case the quantity matters even if it is a restatement
of the same argument.

~~~
upofadown
>But what if the FCC is counting the quantity of citizens making a given point
when deciding?

That is an interesting theory but ultimately the FCC answers to Congress. They
are not allowed to do their own politics (although sometimes they try). They
are in the end just a regulator. They do make a nice scapegoat so as to allow
the actual politicians to avoid criticism of the policies those politicians
created.

~~~
DiThi
Both FCC and congress are composed of people. People can easily be biased just
by the amount of data they encounter on one side or the other, especially if
arguments on both sides sound compelling and most of those people don't really
want to spend too much time into the topic.

