21–30 of 82 posts
What bugs me the most is that the government either doesn't really want to know who's interfering with the democratic process or they know and they're not telling us. The former implies extreme ignorance, the later implies agency capture to the point the FCC is no longer a public institution.
Friendly reminder that there were massive bot compaigns on both sides of the issue. https://archive.fo/sp9Q7 this WSJ article found thousands of people that said they never posted the comments attributed to them. >One 369-word comment supporting the Obama-era net-neutrality rules was posted on the FCC website more than 300,000 times. One of those was attributed to Gloria Burney, 87, a retired speech therapist in Los…
Scraping names/addresses and blasting comments without actually doing the footwork actually undermines the integrity of the entire thing. For both sides.
I won't deny an automated form filler script didn't pass through my mind as an option; but I have a very intense distaste for people who engage in unauthorized proxy behavior, or who subvert other's identities online. Especially now that everyone has thrown out the prevailing common sense of not linking your real life persona to your digital presence. It's one of those lines you just don't cross.
Then again, I've been called an anachronism by peers before; and with recent behavior by various large companies (Wells Fargo) taking the initiative to sign people up for things they don't ask for, maybe my brand of professional ethos hasn't aged well.
What bugs me the most is that the government either doesn't really want to know who's interfering with the democratic process or they know and they're not telling us. The former implies extreme ignorance, the later implies agency capture to the point the FCC is no longer a public institution.
Does it not benefit the current administration?
The original title is "Judge Orders FCC to Hand Over IP Addresses Linked to Fake Net Neutrality Comments"! Removing "Fake" makes it sound like a completely different thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The privacy aspect to this is definitely touchy: > The FCC argued in court that making the millions of IP addresses contained in the logs publicly accessible would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” And while [Judge Schofield] didn’t entirely disagree, she said the agency had failed to adequately spell out how anyone would be harmed by the disclosure. > Regardless, Schofield said she also decid…
I’m a bit confused about the privacy issue here. Isn’t the (alleged) commenter’s full name and address published along with their comment in the public filing? If the commenter’s address is already published what other information can be gleaned from their IP address? Is the fear that someone could use it to piece together a person’s web history?
Gizmodo failed to link to the actual opinion with this info: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7906482/33/the-new-york...
Edit: upon reading more, now I'm not sure if the NYT already has the names and addresses and is just seeking the metadata or if they don't need that data to do their analysis. Your guess might have been right, the ruling is unclear.
Friendly reminder that there were massive bot compaigns on both sides of the issue. https://archive.fo/sp9Q7 this WSJ article found thousands of people that said they never posted the comments attributed to them. >One 369-word comment supporting the Obama-era net-neutrality rules was posted on the FCC website more than 300,000 times. One of those was attributed to Gloria Burney, 87, a retired speech therapist in Los…
- the pro-net-neutrality side organized virtual letter-writing campaigns, getting lots of actual human people to send in pre-written messages they agree with but did not author
- the anti-net-neutrality side, unable to find large numbers of actual human people who agreed, used bots to pretend to be lots of people
and therefore, to the underlying question of what policy do more actual human people support, we should disregard many more of the received anti-net-neutrality comments.
The original title is "Judge Orders FCC to Hand Over IP Addresses Linked to Fake Net Neutrality Comments"! Removing "Fake" makes it sound like a completely different thing.
Friendly reminder that there were massive bot compaigns on both sides of the issue. https://archive.fo/sp9Q7 this WSJ article found thousands of people that said they never posted the comments attributed to them. >One 369-word comment supporting the Obama-era net-neutrality rules was posted on the FCC website more than 300,000 times. One of those was attributed to Gloria Burney, 87, a retired speech therapist in Los…
I don't think the evidence you've posted supports that there were massive bot campaigns. The popular thesis, which the evidence you've presented is consistent with, is - the pro-net-neutrality side organized virtual letter-writing campaigns, getting lots of actual human people to send in pre-written messages they agree with but did not author - the anti-net-neutrality side, unable to find large numbers of actual huma…
I struggle to think how you can characterize 7 million fake comments out of 23 million total that came from a "single fake e-mail generator website" as "the pro-net-neutrality side organized virtual letter-writing campaigns, getting lots of actual human people to send in pre-written messages they agree with but did not author"
I get that this narrative is more comfortable for some to believe, but it's plainly contradicted by the facts.
Friendly reminder that there were massive bot compaigns on both sides of the issue. https://archive.fo/sp9Q7 this WSJ article found thousands of people that said they never posted the comments attributed to them. >One 369-word comment supporting the Obama-era net-neutrality rules was posted on the FCC website more than 300,000 times. One of those was attributed to Gloria Burney, 87, a retired speech therapist in Los…