Slashdot Mirror


FCC Website Hobbled By Comment Trolls Incited By Comedian John Oliver

An anonymous reader writes "In a recent segment of his new HBO show, Last Week Tonight, comedian John Oliver delivered a commentary (video) on the current net neutrality debate. He ended the segment by calling on all internet comment trolls to take advantage of the FCC's open comments section on the topic. 'We need you to get out there and for once in your lives focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction,' he said. 'Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly my pretties! Fly! Fly! Fly!' While the true impact of John Oliver's editorial cannot be confirmed, the FCC nevertheless tweeted shortly after it aired that its website was experiencing technical difficulties due to heavy traffic. They accept comments via email as well at openinternet@fcc.gov."

44 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

    1. Re:Wait a second by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

      No, there are that many comment trolls with a bit torrent client.

    2. Re:Wait a second by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's their parents cable subscription, obviously. They watch it on the extra TV in the basement.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Wait a second by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

      No, we pirate cable.

      I would now like to rant about you putting half your post in the subject...

    4. Re:Wait a second by luckymutt · · Score: 2

      There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

      No, there are just that many trolls that know how to navigate to YouTube...kinda like the link in TFA.
      Since you are not aware, "YouTube" is a video sharing website on a thing called he "Internet" on which said video in the article was "posted."
      For further instruction, see this YOUTUBE link

    5. Re:Wait a second by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Looking at your comment, I hope the FCC turns the internet off as well.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Wait a second by mlk · · Score: 2

      It is on the shows official channel. It is released as part of the advertising (a few of them have gone "viral").

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    7. Re:Wait a second by josquin9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The segment was online Monday. There was a link from The Daily Kos. Oliver also suggested that "net neutrality" sounded too borring to get people interested, and suggested the more accurate "Prevent Cable Company F*^kery" to describe the legislation.

  2. Oh, brilliant by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well done, Sir. Well done.

  3. They're not trolls by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He said nothing about trolls and the people trying to leave comments on the FCC website are not trolling - they're genuinely upset about what the FCC is trying to do to the Internet.

    He made a joke about the low quality of the discourse found on the Internet, but did not call for trolls or advocate trolling.

    1. Re:They're not trolls by Enry · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, a good portion of the end of his rant was specifically targeted at trolls. They're angry and pissed at everything, so he's just trying to get them to channel their hatred.

    2. Re:They're not trolls by sinij · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you quite understand how trolling works. "Angry and pissed" is what trolls try to do to their audience.

      I am not sure annoying FCC will get us closer to preserving NN; if anything trolling will provide them with a "look, they are all nuts!" cover to ignore all feedback.

    3. Re:They're not trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      He said nothing about trolls and the people trying to leave comments on the FCC website are not trolling - they're genuinely upset about what the FCC is trying to do to the Internet.

      He made a joke about the low quality of the discourse found on the Internet, but did not call for trolls or advocate trolling.

      I can only guess that the people giving you an insightful score are themselves trolling because John absolutely said what was quoted in the summary: "'Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly my pretties! Fly! Fly! Fly!'"

    4. Re:They're not trolls by evilviper · · Score: 2

      He said nothing about trolls

      Either you didn't even read half-way through the summary, OR you don't understand how QUOTES work...

      "Seize your moment, my lovely trolls"

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:They're not trolls by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well this is what he said, judge for yourself:

      "That's right: the FCC is literally inviting comments at this address. And at this point, and I can't believe I'm about to do this, I would like to address the Internet commenters out there directly.

      Good evening, monsters. This may be the moment you've spent your whole life training for. You've been out there ferociously commenting on dance videos of adorable three year-olds saying things like: 'Every child could dance like this little loser after 1 week of practice.' Or you've been polluting Frozen's Let It Go with comments like: 'ice castle would giver her hypothermia and she dead in an hour.' Or, and I know you've done this one, commenting on a video on this show [Last Week Tonight] saying 'Fuck this asshole anchor . . . go suck ur presidents dick . . . ur just friends with the terrorists xD.'

      Now, I don't know what any of that means but I don't think it's a compliment. But this was the moment you were made for, commenters. Like Ralph Macchio, you've been honing your skills. Waxing cars and painting fences. Well guess what? Now it's time to do some fucking Karate.

      For once in your life, we need you to channel that anger, that badly spelled vile that you normally reserve for unforgivable attacks on actresses that you seem to think have put on weight. Or politicians that you disagree with. Or photos of your ex-girlfriend getting on with her life. Or non-white actors being cast as fictional characters. And I'm talking to you, RonPaulFan2016. And you, OneDirectionForever. And I'm talking to you, OneDirectionSucksBalls.

      We need you to get out there and, for once in your life, focus your indiscriminate range in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly my pretties! Fly! Fly! Fly!"

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:They're not trolls by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, I feel that the current selection of comments are doing more harm then good.

      A recent search for 14-28 shows many similar letters, and what appears to names in an alphabetical order. The FCC site does not sort by alpha, but rather by date posted.

      Some wrote a very bad script to auto post a very similar collection of statements. The FCC is only going to see that, and ignore them, and worse, the ISP's who are dead set against NT or Title II will use that as cannon fodder to sway peoples opinion, and make us look like a bunch of idiots.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    7. Re:They're not trolls by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't think you quite understand how trolling works. "Angry and pissed" is what trolls try to do to their audience.

      In other words, trolling is a approach requiring subtlety.

    8. Re:They're not trolls by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Well played sir !

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:They're not trolls by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Informative

      My understanding of "troll" is "someone who posts content specifically to entice a response", be that response anger, confusion, etc. Likewise, a "troll" post is that content.

      A "flamebait", another moderation option, is a post written specificaly to entice a flame response. In my understanding, this is merely a subset of a "troll", albeit usually one focused on known sensitive topics like race, gender, or religion.

      Meanwhile, there's no moderation for actual "flame" posts - i.e. those posts written by people angry and pissed at everything for real, not just pretending to be to elicit responses. So these usually get moderated as trolls or flamebait or just overrated, whatever feels right at the time. I wish they would replace "flamebait" with "flame" and let moderators adjust accordingly.

      Anyway, that's why I think mods use "troll" for angry and pissed-off posts; slashdot fails to provide a correct mod for that scenario, moderators often feel that "1" or "2" is overrated for those posts, yet "overrated" is too bland for general use beyond correction of inaccurate moderation (i.e. something moderated "informative" that is factually incorrect).

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    10. Re:They're not trolls by marcello_dl · · Score: 3, Funny

      Troll is the mod for the comment that you dislike which is neither flamebait nor offtopic, duh.

      Back to topic, if a troll obeys a call for arms, it is an impure trollable troll that needs his troll card revoked.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    11. Re:They're not trolls by Kasar · · Score: 2

      Ignoring all feedback seems a given from the industry executive turned lobbyist who is running the FCC anyway.
      Government appointments sold to the highest bidder make for some terrible outcomes.

      --
      vi? Who's that?
  4. Maybe fcc.gov should have paid Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a little more cash to keep the bits flowing smoothly.

  5. Well that's a new definition... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FCC definition of trolling: General public pissed off to the point where they crash a website to leave comments on an unpopular topic.

    Up next: .gov petitions. Obama administration states individuals signing petitions are failing to follow doctrine. Re-education camps opening near you! Contact your local party official for the address.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  6. Humor/snark aside, his description is apt! by Chas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously. I watched the video earlier today. It was remarkably clear, fairly concise and very accurate.

    If this guy actually motivates enough people, even if for the wrong reasons, I salute him.
    If he actually gets people motivated for the right reasons? Oh hell, he's up for sainthood.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Humor/snark aside, his description is apt! by phorm · · Score: 2

      Despite being funny, he definitely took no prisoners, and really did help identify a lot of the issues
      * Tons of bills written in endless droning lawyerspeak which nobody can read through
      * A lobbiest placed in a position of oversight over his former industry
      * B.S. like saying "fast and faster" instead of the real "fast and slow"
      * More B.S. like the claims that nobody was slowing down Netflix etc deliberately

  7. Real Comments by Ephro · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was able to load a few of the comments. I never saw one "trollie" comment. Here are some examples:

    I want the internet to be regulated like any other utility. That is what it is - a
    utility. Everyone in this day and age needs to have internet access. It is not a
    question of IF they need it. Accessibility to the internet pervades all aspects of
    life, and it will destroy innovation and creativity of small businesses to have to
    pay non-standardized prices for their internet traffic. Stop pandering to the money,
    and start pandering to the people - contrary to what the money thinks, the PEOPLE
    are the ones you serve.

    ---

    Members of the FCC,

    Individuals granted the power to rule over such a critical technology, during
    such a critical time in the development of our species. Create a respectable
    legacy.

    Regarding moving forward with regulations to maintain an ‘Open Internet’,
    it is critical that ISPs are re-classified as Title ll public utility providers, so
    that both consumers and innovators are guaranteed fair opportunity in the
    foreseeable future, and ISPs are prevented from gradually creating an
    innovation crushing, tiered network over the next few decades. Use the
    power you have now to create a lasting change, for if the regulation is weak
    in its foundation, with time it will collapse under the force of the corrupt
    interest of multi-billion dollars companies’ lobbying efforts.

    Thank You,

    Laser Nite
    MIT Class of 2017

    ---

    I demand net neutrality. People deserve equal access to bandwidth regardless of how
    much they can afford to pay. The internet is an integral communication and
    educational tool in our society.

    ---

    reclassify broadband internet as a title II common carrier telecommunications
    service

    I want the internet to be regulated like any other utility. That is what it is - a
    utility. Everyone in this day and age needs to have internet access. It is not a
    question of IF they need it. Accessibility to the internet pervades all aspects of
    life, and it will destroy innovation and creativity of small businesses to have to
    pay non-standardized prices for their internet traffic. Stop pandering to the money,
    and start pandering to the people - contrary to what the money thinks, the PEOPLE
    are the ones you serve.

    ---

    Just like everything else in this country, it seems the internet is now going to be
    owned by big corporations. They are to follow in the footsteps of BIG PHARMA and
    BIG OIL. We, as Americans, think that we have a voice, that this is a democracy.
    That may no longer be the case. I believe we have no voice. Our politicians, our
    food, our choices are now owned by the big corporations. If we do not have net
    neutrality, it will be the final nail in the coffin of democracy around the world
    and the corporation will be the dictator.

    1. Re:Real Comments by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 2

      Members of the FCC,

      Individuals granted the power to rule over such a critical technology, during such a critical time in the development of our species. Create a respectable legacy.

      Regarding moving forward with regulations to maintain an ‘Open Internet’, it is critical that ISPs are re-classified as Title ll public utility providers, so that both consumers and innovators are guaranteed fair opportunity in the foreseeable future, and ISPs are prevented from gradually creating an innovation crushing, tiered network over the next few decades. Use the power you have now to create a lasting change, for if the regulation is weak in its foundation, with time it will collapse under the force of the corrupt interest of multi-billion dollars companies’ lobbying efforts.

      Thank You,

      Laser Nite MIT Class of 2017

      I don't think it can be said better than this. Damn, that's good.

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    2. Re:Real Comments by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 2

      Comments filed on the same day are listed in alphabetical order. They're sorted in order by date (not time) and then by name.

  8. Re:Huh? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who is "John Oliver"?

    Probably most famous for being one of Jon Stewart's Daily Show regular correspondants, and guest host while Stewart was off directing his movie.

    Since then he's left the Daily Show to pursue his own thing; much like Stephen Colbert; and while not as famous as Colbert, he's very well known.

  9. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > Some random comic makes a joke to a small segment of the TV watching late-nighters, and this somehow took down an FCC web site?

    That youtube video of his entire net-neutrality bit has 1.2M views as of 48 hours after it was broadcast on HBO - that's 7 people per second.

    Nevermind who saw it on TV, a metric fuckload of people saw it on youtube and they weren't just random people, they were people specifically interested in the topic else they wouldn't have clicked through to youtube in the first place.

  10. We used to have a term for this some years back by haruchai · · Score: 5, Funny

    It used to be called Slashdotting.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:We used to have a term for this some years back by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

      That bug was solved in Slashdot Beta.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  11. Amazing Video - Quite to the Point by WolphFang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually found this video quite informative and too the point. He definately attacks the issue head on while "sugar coating" everything in comedic form to hold attention. His approach to getting this message out in this video might be one of the most effective ways I've seen to date.

    --
    leather-dog muksihs
    Blog: @muksihs
  12. Re:Just goes to show by trytoguess · · Score: 4, Funny

    An anon calls for a site to put in steps to prevent any random Joe/Jane from posting on a site? The irony, oh it hurts...

  13. A call to arms! by McLae · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If any site deserved the "Slashdot effect", this is it!

    I just left a comment. The number 2 issue with comments had about 200 of so. This issue has 45k and rising. Lets tack another digit in the end!

    Thoughtful, reasoned, and on point. Let see if we can make a difference.

  14. Re:Huh? by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's OK. You're republican, you don't need to know.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  15. When 'contempt for system' goes mainstream by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What a long way down to this.

    TWENTY YEARS ago when a 1 megabit T1 cost $10,000 a month installed to the Caribbean -- with an equal measure of determination, deft grantsmanship and elbow grease we managed to bring Internet to the US Virgin Islands with the Virgin Islands Freenet. One day in September 1994 connectivity was available for ~40 cents a minute if you dialed long distance to the states, a couple thou a month for 56kbit or 10k for T1. The day after you could get an email address, access Usenet groups and browse the web with Lynx on 4 (and later as many as 12) local dialup lines.

    So when the National Telecommunications Information Administration announced the first-ever roundtable discussion on the future of the global Internet we were there, and carried the newsgroups so our growing user base could follow and participate in this near real-time discussion. The issues were well presented, the discussion was formal and polite.

    There does seem to be a general lack of civility and willingness to participate in process these days.

    Now I do hold some measure of contempt for the Federal Government as a whole in its hubris over control of the Internet. The NSA is pushing net neutrality in its charter-be-damned initiative to listen to everyone, the president-du-jour tolerates 'Internet kill switch' dialogue throughout the Executive Branch as if martial law security checkpoints should be written into law, and let's not forget the peoples' hero Al Gore who lobbied for the government to hold our encryption keys in escrow. There is a large bullshit factor.

    But attacking the FCC is sort of like going after park rangers. For better or worse (mostly better) it presided over the breakup of the Bells. It helped to ensure that even rural USA modernized its telecom to bring about modern access choices, the ones we take for granted today, to as much of the country as possible. And now they are charged with accepting comments on 'net neutrality' -- which will be as hard to adequately define in the modern context as it would be to discuss.

    Now more than ever we need the real voices of people who aren't afraid to write their thoughts into multi-paragraph letters and opinions, no matter the medium, so say something about it. Just like my Freenet folks twenty years ago were eager to do. These folks are not wanting to know how to control, they are asking in what ways it may be best to regulate.

    Control is what we generally try to avoid. Regulation that occurs with a majority of support that accomplishes useful goals -- such as the rural electrification and building of telecom in America -- is a necessary part of due process.

    Time to try to recapture just a bit of the cultural restraint and intelligent determination of yesteryear, methinks.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:When 'contempt for system' goes mainstream by g8oz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And now that once great FCC is being run by the former head of the cable industry's lobbying arm.

      Politeness and restraint will not get you anywhere when you are up against big corporations.

    2. Re:When 'contempt for system' goes mainstream by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      But attacking the FCC is sort of like going after park rangers. For better or worse (mostly better) it presided over the breakup of the Bells

      I wouldn't say the FCC is like the park rangers, anymore.

      The FCC is the perfect example of the phenomena called "regulatory capture," when a body that is supposed to act as a check upon an industry instead becomes completely taken over by the industry they were supposed to regulate. It's a specific form of political corruption, and it's the de facto situation at the FCC, where the revolving door of appointments go between the FCC and industry positions. A few examples:

      Michael Powell, FCC chairman for four years and who oversaw deregulation and encouraged media consolidation, is now the chief lobbyist for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. His successor, Julius Genachowski was an FCC chairman for eight years. He was one of the executives who created Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting, and made $2.5 million when Vivendi bought Universal. His successor and current FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, was a CEO for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, and before that president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. We see a pattern here, where chairmen are appointed from industry executives and are often rewarded by industry jobs when they leave the public sector.

      I'm not a libertarian, I believe there can be a role in government to act as a check like the FCC was supposed to. But regulatory capture is one of the very best arguments libertarians can use to show -why- it is important to limit the power of the federal government.

  16. Re: Huh? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    Even better, people were sharing this through Facebook, with friends and family. We all should share it too, as it's probably the best non-technical explanation for them on all the key points. If you haven't yet, please do so.

  17. Re:Huh? by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

    Could you do me a favor?

    Sure, you might not like it though.

    Could you rationalize to yourself why you must turn everything into partisan politics?

    Firstly, that word does not mean what you think it means.

    Secondly, you must be another republican or the parent.

    Thirdly, whooosh.

    *and since I'm usually kind to the unfortunate. John Oliver is a comedian who makes fun of the stupidity of US politics (ok, other countries as well, but the US just has so much stupidity it's a goldmine). It just so happens that it's the republicans who are usually clueless and full of stupidity. The republicans NOT knowing who John is, is usually what makes his interviews so funny.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  18. Re:Comment Trolls != Hacking by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    Oops, that 'hobbled" not "hacked".

    Still blaming John Oliver because people actually used the website is stupid.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  19. Sorry, but you got this wrong. by hey! · · Score: 2

    The FCC isn't a body that regulates according to enduring principles of openness, access and competition. It's run by political appointees. It's mission statement notwithstanding, FCC priorities ultimately reflect the political agenda of commissioners, the people who appointed the commissioners, and the people who will be employing those commissioners after they complete their five year term.

    Sure, there are guys who work for the FCC who are like the park rangers; the guys with the loop antennas looking for pirate radio stations or administering the ham radio exam. But we're talking about setting policy here; it's not like "going after park rangers", it's more like "going after the Secretary of the Interior." Sally Jewell has very different priorities at Interior than did James Watt under Reagan. You can like one without liking the other.

    Likewise you can think that Reed Hundt, who was commisioner in 1994, was hero, or perhaps you think he was a meddling socialist. Chances are no matter what you thought of Hundt, you think the *opposite* of Tom Wheeler, the current commissioner.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  20. Technical Difficulties by PPH · · Score: 2

    For a price, the FCC's ISP might be persuaded to unthrottle public access to their web site.

    Hey FCC. This is how you and everyone else will be doing business soon if you make the wrong decision. Get used to it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.