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

Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

ag.ny.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 316 posts

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#161

Post by bob_theslob646 »

1101010010 wrote: post #29

This is only the tip of the iceberg. A majority of the "user content" (product reviews, brand engagement, comments on social media sites, etc) is completely fake, bought for and paid by big money interest aka bots. No different than automated scans of the IPv4 address space: simple, unsophisticated, low-cost and without any repercussion.

It's such a double-edged sword anonymity on the internet, but it really is starting to come to be a massive problem where you have no idea whether someone is a person or a bot and now with LLMs, I fear the fake review spam will be next level where it'll be almost impossible to tell real from fake.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#162

Post by ordu »

sva_ wrote: post #11

This kind of shit is one of the reasons why people stop believing in western democracy.

They are wrong here. A regime which is not western democracy probably would pretend that nothing happened. It is much more suspicious when there are not investigations like this. Sometimes it is worse: such kind of investigations are conducted by independent entities, which are then prosecuted and silenced.

I agree, that fine is a joke and cast doubt on western democracy, but what I want to say, is like Chircill's:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.[1]

In practice absolute level of your belief doesn't matter, only a relative one when comparing with alternatives.

[1] https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form...

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#163

Post by csomar »

anovikov wrote: post #136
heavyset_go wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an individual committed fraud by impersonating millions of people, they'd be in prison.

Not really. Vast majority of the crypto money made in 2021-2022 was by swarming ICOs and launchpads with sometimes hundreds of thousands (among people i personally know) and probably millions among those i don't, fake accounts - all having real names, addresses, IPs, passport scans etc. - getting in onto highly deficit launches when like 1 in a 100 trying gets in, and then the coin goes 10x because of immense demand.…

Many went to jail and some celebrities got fines. I'm pretty sure some went under the radar but the prosecution is still working on the years 2016-2019. If you are in the US and you've been involved in such sh*t, you are in really bad position.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#164

Post by demindiro »

nine_k wrote: post #157
Jupe wrote: post #98

> LCX and Lead ID were responsible for many of these fake comments, letters, and petition signatures. Across four advocacy campaigns in 2017 and 2018, LCX fabricated consumer responses used in approximately 900,000 public comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Similarly, in advocacy campaigns between 2017…

This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is, or not being heard (e.g. because everyone will assume a petition without hard proofs of identity fake). Yes, this is disenfranchising. But not being heard while some company pretends to speak for you is even more disenfranchising.

>This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is

That will become less effective as companies become increasingly centralized, with just a few having many, many brands.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#165

Post by dotancohen »

slushh wrote: post #132
Waterluvian wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$615k is a stern look by a grandma whose eyes cannot help but betray just how much she loves you.

It works, because you love her. An almost absurd question, but would it be possible to add love to company interactions?

Unless you're Subaru, then no. For every other company, there is public opinion and public goodwill.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#166

Post by nurettin »

ummonk wrote: post #6

"An investigation by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that the fake comments used the identities of millions of consumers, including thousands of New Yorkers, without their knowledge or consent." $615k seems like a slap on the wrist for what they did.

It is probably more than what they made as a "fake comment provider".

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#167

Post by PeterStuer »

RajT88 wrote: post #110

I remember debating with a guy I know about Net Neutrality leading up to this. He was a sales director at a company that ran network backbone and fiber lines. He was insistent that the Net Neutrality debate was dumb, because it was trying to negate the peering agreements that make the industry run. The way he told it, anyone with a big backbone chooses to invest in peering arrangements with other companies who also m…

Is Netflix 'pushing' the traffic onto the ISP or are the ISP's customers asking for and pulling in that traffic though?

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#168

Post by deadbolt »

maxbond wrote: post #154
sobkas wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't a meaningful tautology. "The system is unjust because it is unjust and therefore must always be unjust." > We can and should improve society. We should, but what makes you think that we can?

I've seen amazing progress over my lifetime, and I see enormous potential in current social movements. It's not guaranteed, and I see incredibly destructive social movements picking up speed as well, but I do believe it's possible.

I see forward movements regarding social issues, but I don't think I can recall anything for my entire life, which has been a win against capital.

That's not to say it isn't possible, but that it's unlikely should we continue the same way.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#169

Post by srj »

RajT88 wrote: post #110

I remember debating with a guy I know about Net Neutrality leading up to this. He was a sales director at a company that ran network backbone and fiber lines. He was insistent that the Net Neutrality debate was dumb, because it was trying to negate the peering agreements that make the industry run. The way he told it, anyone with a big backbone chooses to invest in peering arrangements with other companies who also m…

If Netflix wasn't sharing costs in upgrading peering links I agree, but I never understood that to be the point of the debate. Instead it's that ISPs want to rate and charge differently for different providers / content types.

This allows them to try and charge the customer more, but possibly more importantly to charge service providers for access to their customer base. The alternative is that you pay your ISP for X bytes and it doesn't matter what they are or who it's from.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#170

Post by zamnos »

bombcar wrote: post #135
RajT88 wrote: post #110

I remember debating with a guy I know about Net Neutrality leading up to this. He was a sales director at a company that ran network backbone and fiber lines. He was insistent that the Net Neutrality debate was dumb, because it was trying to negate the peering agreements that make the industry run. The way he told it, anyone with a big backbone chooses to invest in peering arrangements with other companies who also m…

There’s something there - Netflix had just moved to a tier 2/3 provider and they weren’t peered well and Netflix was trying to get the big ISPs to peer instead of selling transit - peering for an almost entirely one way connection. The t1s weren’t having it. The moment Netflix setup caching servers in isp COs around the world they stopped caring about net neutrality. Strange.

Netflix couldn't know what the outcome was going to be, so they hedged by creating a technical solution to the problem. They still pay the ISPs, but for colo services instead of the net neutrality ransom. The problem with paying ransom is it'll just keep going up. Colo services could also keep going up, but it's much more constrained because there's an actual good/service being provided and not just paying money to change a firewall/QoS box rule.
Post reply on HN