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

231–240 of 316 posts

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#231

Post by az226 »

boomerango wrote: post #62
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.

Puts on conspiracy hat What if killing net neutrality was a given, but the administration wanted the appearance of due process… God, I’ve grown jaded.

I remember back then, it was abundantly clear that this is what it was. Ajit Pai was against it. He’s a corporate shill. They were doing stuff deliberately to sour the process. Also, like 100% of the fake comments were against net neutrality, which was quite telling. The fake comments weren’t even spread in a believable way. The times look very much bot generated. Simple stuff to filter out if you were honest.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#233

Post by az226 »

astrange wrote: post #37
koboll wrote: post #5

They got fined $600k, the telecoms saved billions Pretty good deal if you ask me

Those two things aren't related. This was during a Republican FCC adminstration and Ajit Pai would've repealed net neutrality even if every comment was for it. He doesn't care what public comments say nor does he need to. That not mattering was then canceled out by another not mattering, because California passed the same rules so they effectively apply to everyone anyway.

Just because the outcome would have been the same doesn’t mean we can just allow this to happen with not even a slap on the wrist. This should be serious jail time.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#234

Post by fnimick »

hayst4ck wrote: post #60
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.

In the game of prisoners dilemma, they defected and won. This means their strategy of corruption is a winning strategy. It means our law has failed and we can expect more people to practice a strategy of corruption and flouting the law rather than a strategy of adherence to the law or ethical principles.

Breaking the rules and cheating has been a celebrated strategy here and in the startup community. Remember that Uber and AirBnB were blatantly illegal when they launched and made millions. Remember how YC was encouraging people who advertised how to lie to skip covid vaccine wait lines as a "social hack"?

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#235

Post by isaacremuant »

robocat wrote: post #80
sva_ wrote: post #11

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

And yet democracy so tarnished still appears better to me than the alternatives we have tried so far. I haven’t lived in some of the alternatives, but I have visited some, and I feel fortunate to have been born in New Zealand.

> and I feel fortunate to have been born in New Zealand

Just make sure you don't have the wrong opinions. Such as not going with the medical coercion and banning of civil rights that occured from 2020.

Oh, my bad, that authoranianism is good and they deserved it - Signed, Mr G.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#236

Post by savant_penguin »

clnq wrote: post #64
savant_penguin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are describing totalitarian authoritarianism, not communism. This is why I felt that the distinction between communism and the failed USSR experiment was necessary. Sadly, whenever many people from the US hear the word communism, they immediately assume it means the Soviet Union. Communism was one of many aspects of USSR, many of which were much less desirable by its people.

Could you provide one example of communism that did not end up an authoritarian regime?

Communism is just not compatible with freedom. When free to choose, societies do not become communist, they embrace production and trade. You cannot achieve what communists want without extensive use of force

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#237

Post by nielsbot »

“the three companies have agreed to pay $615,000 in penalties and disgorgement”

Is this actually a significant punishment? Will the decisions based on these fake comments be reconsidered or reversed?

Someone should sue these companies in civil court for damage done.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#238

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#239

Post by Rexxar »

callalex wrote: post #171
pooper wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will not silently go to prison because my 401k worth under USD 20k owns 0.0015 shares as a part of some mutual fund. The CEO and the board do not do my bidding. Send them to prison.

That sounds like it would be a very strong incentive for investors to avoid potentially bad actors and instead favor non-criminal investments such as bonds. This is a feature.

So you do a convertible bond with a buy option that give you 90% of the company if it's successful and you still avoid risks and get all of the profit.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#240

Post by esjeon »

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.

Caching can delay the net neutrality issue by NOT serving the contents from the first party. ISPs peering Netflix won't suffer the heavy traffic (thus no reason to charge tons of money), and ISPs that hosts caches can achieve higher QoS for their customers and also can possibly charge other peers who don't host caches. It's a win-win strategy.
Post reply on HN