Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 343 posts

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#281

Post by viraptor »

wpietri wrote: post #254
viraptor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it mattered, but the comments as shown in the article are pretty much the same copy with various simple replacements for many phrases. This happens in lots of spam campaigns. I'm not sure anyone spent much time doing it - could be few hours for someone who does spam already. It doesn't look like a sophisticated or costly action.

You didn't answer the question. If it didn't matter, why did somebody invest time in doing it?

I wasn't planning to, since we can't answer this without knowing who did it.

My point was just to provide context for "spent time". It wasn't some huge operation. It could've been one day for one person. At that point the cost is so low it could've been done for the lulz. Or it could've been a cheap case of foreign groups trying to achieve something. Who knows.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#282

Post by rhino369 »

manquer wrote: post #161
matt4077 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Netflix especially gets a free "fast lane" at my isps with their Open Connect server. They basically get small ISPs to host, for free, a Netflix only CDN in the ISP's datacenter.

That isn't neutral. It is pure favoritism based on Netflix being the 800lbs gorilla.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#283

Post by avs733 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #280
cirgue wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 cont…

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.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#284

Post by 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.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#285

Post by travmatt »

CydeWeys wrote: post #275
travmatt wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When people vote for president, they vote for a bundle of positions on thousands of issues. Some issues are never discussed in any debate or media at all and presidents have as far as the public is concerned roughly zero position on them (for example, NN). I don’t disagree with you on this at all, but again I think it boils down to ‘elections have consequences’. I don’t think that just because an issue was judged no…

Elections do have consequences, sure, but they are far from the end-all and be-all in determining what happens in government. Elected officials should be continuously responsive to their citizen's best interests, not only every 2-6 years at election time. And, likewise, we as citizens have the responsibility to deliver our input continuously, not just to pull the lever at the ballot box every 2-6 years. In addition t…

Politicians who govern by poll typically find they have accomplished nothing and yet managed to piss people off anyway.. there’s a line between ignoring voters and instituting needed reforms, and its easier for Pai to argue the latter when this is the policy platform republicans campaigned on. It’s tough for me to believe a party shouldn’t carry out the legislative agenda it campaigned on whenever the opposing party didn’t like it.

I think if people voted consistently in the midterms that would solve many problems, but alas that is relatively rare, much less the level of involvement you describe.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#286

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #246
TehCorwiz wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC is appointed, not elected. And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes.

Nope, he just got 3 million votes less - but the way the voting system works is that absolute number of votes doesn't count, how they're distributed in states count. The current President didn't design this system, and the opponent could just as well have benefited by it (and previous presidents had). Lacking direct democracy, it's not even necessarily a bad system in itself (whatever one believes for the current pre…

[deleted]

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#287

Post by cirgue »

pdkl95 wrote: post #280
cirgue wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 cont…

> letter writing

Especially this: letters get way more notice than phone calls or online petitions. Many representatives actually read their letters. Phone calls typically get filtered through staff, and they generally don't communicate a whole lot to the rep unless the person calling is a significant player in their district.

If you write a clear, concise letter explaining how an issue impacts you, your peers, and local/regional business, you will have a pretty solid shot at getting someone's attention.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#288

Post by Karunamon »

Danihan wrote: post #105
Spare_account wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The clincher, though, is that the significant majority of the natural language, individually written comments supported Net Neutrality. Yes, there are vested interests prepared to commit fraud on both sides. But all of the people feel the same way about this. I suppose the question therefore is, if the politicians are prepared to upset all of the people , they must be pretty confident they'll still be re-elected next…

We just need to move to full-on direct democracy. Not representative. Then there would be fewer questions about "what the people actually want."

At the risk of unavoidable snark, I’d rather not have the entire country live by what California and New York want. We have states where the EU has countries - there’s still a massive cultural disconnect that would render that system unfair to everyone not living in a metro area.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#289

Post by indubitable »

mrgordon wrote: post #243
indubitable wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. F…

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…

I am not stating he is somebody Obama would have chosen to lead the FCC, but Obama saw fit to appoint him. A democratic majority senate saw fit to approve him.

I do not necessarily agree with Pai, but actually take the time to read what he says instead of snippets taken out of context and it's hardly nonsensical or untruthful. In going through this process of trying to actually discover his views, I found several interviews [1][2][3] that I found informative. His major view is that you regulate as necessary. Let people compete openly and freely with as few rules as possible. When bad behavior emerges deal with it as necessary. He is focused primarily on competition and simplifying what is required for ISPs to get in and operate. Adding hundreds of pages of rules and regulations does not really fit into the picture here.

I don't necessarily agree with him, but he certainly has a perfectly cogent argument. And I think disagreeing on the right path forward is perfectly fine. A number of small ISPs have written to Pai expressing support of his plans to dismantle the rules. Others have written him expressing disagreement with those plans. This is all a far cry from calling somebody a nonsensical shill, a liar, and so on. And in the vitriol on both sides, I find most have very little understanding of what it is they're even getting so riled up about.

--

Out of curiosity, if you would humor me. Why do you think Google Fiber failed to achieve significant sign ups in the region it setup in? In the ~6 years of operation to 2016 it managed an estimated 0.07million television subscribers, 0.45 million broadband subscribers. They've since rolled back further plans for expansion and engaged in lay offs in downsizing. Imagine the doomsday scenarios come true and suddenly ISPs are demanding $10 for social media, $10 for gaming, ... . What effect, if any, do you think this would have on the outcome?

[1] - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/52...

[2] - https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrit...

[3] - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chai...

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#290

Post by mygo »

wpietri wrote: post #276
krapp wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes. There is no "popular election" in the American system. Consent is, and has always been, given by proxy through the electoral college, as defined in the US Constitution. If you want to invalidate Trump's authority because of that, you have to invalidate every election prior as well, and claim that the US governm…

Sadly, Ice-T, used a false dichotomy. We can hate the player and the game. And often should. But you define the game too narrowly. The technical mechanism of the election to the presidency is indeed currently via the electoral college. That's one game. One deeper game is mandate. If an election result is strong, the victor is seen as having a mandate to strongly pursue their agenda. See, for example, Bush's claim tha…

But I don’t want to have to wait until Seattle gets nuked before we do something about our problems.
Post reply on HN