Slashdot Mirror


A Bot Is Flooding the FCC's Website With Fake Anti-net Neutrality Comments (zdnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A bot is thought to be behind the posting of thousands of messages to the FCC's website, in an apparent attempt to influence the results of a public solicitation for feedback on net neutrality. A sizable portion of those comments are fake, and are repeating the same manufactured response again and again, ZDNet reports. So much so that more than 58,000 identical comments have been posted since the feedback doors were opened, now representing over one-in-ten comments on the FCC's feedback docket. The comment reads as following: "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years."

ZDNet claims that all other comments follow the same pattern: the bot appears to cycle through names in an alphabetical order, leaving the person's name, and postal address and zip code. And some -- if not all -- of these comments are fake, the publication adds, claiming that it reached out to the people and many of them confirmed that they had not left any comments on the website.

102 comments

  1. B-but slashdot said the FCC lied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

    So... did slashdot just provide "proof"?!

    1. Re:B-but slashdot said the FCC lied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Calling that guy a retard is an offence to retards.

  2. FCC comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years."

    That was my comment, and I can assure you I am entirely real person.

    -Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:FCC comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, we can add your one comment to all the other comments for and against

    2. Re:FCC comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. When someone sends you a form request saying "say this to the FCC", and then you manually say that to the FCC, that's not a bot, that really is people.

    3. Re:FCC comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years."

      That was my comment, and I can assure you I am entirely real person.

      -Anonymous Coward

    4. Re:FCC comment by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Posting under names in alphabetical sequence? Rookie mistake

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:FCC comment by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Just because a large number of people submitted the same comment doesn't mean it was a bot.

      Just because those people all submitted their comment in the alphabetical order of their personal names, should not be taken as a bot, just a coincidence.

      Even if some of those people are deceased, this is not evidence of anything improper or wrong. Dead people are still people and have opinions about public policy.

      So stop complaining about net neutrality and STFU. The government is working in your bestest interests. Bigly!

      (this message brought to you by the Telecom, ISP and Cable industries. I am Randall L. Stephenson and I approved this message)

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  3. Great by dejitaru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Watch Ajit Pai use that as enough excuse to "give the people what they want" and destroy net neutrality, regardless if it only accounts for 10% of the posts.

    Who am I kidding, he doesn't care to explain himself...

    1. Re:Great by krissyh · · Score: 1

      tear - too right

    2. Re:Great by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not remotely credible. It presumes that a government agency would actually read comments from citizens. Not a feature of large governments. They are required to accept comments, of course. Of course.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Great by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      It's not surprising the comment resonates with him—buzzwords like "bipartisan light-touch" are basically copied right out of his mouth. Maybe he's behind the bot?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:Great by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Doubt it. It's probably crafted to resonate with him, though.

      Back in the days of the SSSCA/CBDTPA, I wrote to Bush 43 to ask him to lobby against it, and veto it, should it cross his desk. I used terms that would appeal to him, "overreach of big goverment", "liberal Hollywood elite", etc...

      You craft your message for the audience.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Great by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hey now, maybe those 10% of people were in sparsely populated states, and therefore their opinions are worth more due to the amount of unoccupied land surrounding them :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Great by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 0

      Do large governments have "features". All they do is suck the money into a black hole where you never see a penny of the money you forcefully "invested" in it.

    7. Re:Great by oic0 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he should be prosecuted for treason? Obviously going against the will of the people suggests he must have some other motivation.

    8. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously... How stupid do you have to be, to have read the many, many comments (here, and across the web) that detail what is and isn't treason, and still manage to not understand it? Treason is pretty fucking well defined.

      Slashdot is a site for intelligent people. You are unintelligent. Go away. The drop in traffic is an acceptable loss, to ensure we maintain a minimal level of intellect among posters. Seriously, go away. You, and your ilk, aren't helping.

    9. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who am I kidding, he doesn't care to explain himself...

      His explanation is: "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years."

    10. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right? It's really damned tough to hack a new road out of the forest, just to go to work every day. Having to hire your own security forces, fire department, and emergency responders is so expensive today.

      I could go on, but I suspect the effort would be wasted.

    11. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You craft your message for the audience.

      Then you should have crafted the message for staffers, since they were the ones that read your message. Not Bush.

    12. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one have no doubts as to the bot's origins...

      It was decided from the start that Ajit Pai would use the comments from that bot.

      His boss told him to.

    13. Re: Great by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      Treason, Noun: The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.

      If the people of the country want the Internet to be neutral than not keeping that in place could b seen as a betrayal of the Countries best interest.

      Treason isn't exclusively wartime, nor is it exclusively anti government, especially in a governmental structure that is supposed to be fore the will of the people and appears to be acting against that will.

      That said, I assume the US legal definition of treason is much narrower than the English language definition but insulting people never works to educate them so if you have an opposing definition you may want to provide it rather than acting like a prick.

    14. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years."
      That was my comment, and I can assure you I am entirely real person.

      -Anonymous Coward

  4. False flag? by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As much as I wish ISPs and their shills would be this transparent, this seems like a false flag to me. ISPs exert enough influence that they don't need to fabricate a grassroots effort, let alone one that's so clearly astroturf. OTOH, I can believe some script kiddy thinking this would somehow appear damaging to ISPs.

    1. Re:False flag? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      These script kiddies are either idiots or this is indeed a false flag. Did nobody ever think to put the sentences into a database and retrieve them with a random number generator, and do the same with the contact info?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As much as I wish ISPs and their shills would be this transparent, this seems like a false flag to me. ISPs exert enough influence that they don't need to fabricate a grassroots effort, let alone one that's so clearly astroturf. OTOH, I can believe some script kiddy thinking this would somehow appear damaging to ISPs.

      They exert influence by doing exactly what you say they don't do. They fabricate grassroots coalitions fighting for the 'people', when in reality they are fighting for their own side.

      A lot of these organizations popped up during the #UnlockTheBox saga. An accidentally leaked document in a court case against Comcast showed that they spent $120M lobbying on the efforts.

    3. Re: False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Script kiddies these days. Pshhh. Back in my day we used to TOS people off of AOL using this same tactic. Except ours looked legit because it wasn't the same post over and over and over again with different names. Canned responses never work.

      Scour the internet for real people discussing the issue. Toss that into a database, RNG the names and posts, if it's been used toss it.

    4. Re:False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're one of ... uhh, those types, you like both frogs and heterosexuality, I am gonna turn your world upside down.

    5. Re:False flag? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Normally sure, but ISPs might have realized that lobbying is pointlessly expensive and unnecessary given recent political events. The dumber the approach, the more likely it is to succeed. Anyone paying attention will realize only the most hated companies in america will benefit from this, while everyone else will suffer. But clearly, most people are paying no attention. "Half the comments on this boring internet thing were happy about it, so you can ignore it" is probably all the cover they'll need.

    6. Re:False flag? by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      I can believe some script kiddy thinking this would somehow appear damaging to ISPs.

      My bet is it's just a hacktivist trying to make his/her views seem more mainstream and popular than they really are.

      Let's face it; history is full of examples where adherents to a fringe belief lie to themselves (and others) and promote it as being mainstream.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    7. Re:False flag? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "some script kiddy thinking this would somehow appear damaging to ISPs."

      Why not some script kiddy thinking he can actually stop net neutrality? Eleven-dimensional chess has gone out of fashion with the script kiddies.

    8. Re:False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the real purpose here is to discredit the entire "online submission" process. By flooding with fake comments against NN, they persuade pro-NN activists to prove that they're fake - and the moment that's done, every online submission, either way, is devalued.

    9. Re: False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years.

    10. Re: False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years

      .

    11. Re:False flag? by bongey · · Score: 1

      Comments started being posted on 4/28/2017, right away a comment about astroturfing the fcc showed up on a liberal sub-reddit. Without a doubt a dumb liberal false flag, the comments had to be so repetitive,stupid and that it was anti-Obama thus no-one could disagree that it was right wing trump nut-jobs (wink, wink) astroturfing https://www.reddit.com/r/esist...

    12. Re:False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but how do you know that those Reddit comments were from real liberals, and not double-false-flag right-wing operatives who wanted to give cover to their actual-not-false-flag bot operation?

      But it also might be a conspiracy to conspire against conspiracy theorists, hatched by technoliberals to try and falsely implicate right-wing operatives as the source of false flag Reddit comments, when in fact THEY THEMSELVES were false flagging the false flaggers! Quadruple backburner, case closed!

      Nice try, Obama, but we easily saw through your little charade.

  5. Not Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not helpful. The bot posting will give the FCC a reason to ignore most messages and claim that most complaints came from bots.

    1. Re:Not Helpful by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure. Never mind that petitions that get passed around for just about any cause generally use the same text, with an option to add some text of your own, along with your name. If that's the standard being used then I suppose it's easy enough to just toss any petition (or set of comments) into the bin and say "LOL, those are all fake!". Apparently we're now living in the era of 'Fake everything'; fake public comments, fake news, fake POTUS..

    2. Re:Not Helpful by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering that most real postings will most likely be pro-neutrality, since the average user has exactly zero to gain and everything to lose from abandoning net neutrality, I'd guess that's pretty much the goal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Not Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They ususally are passed in alphabetical order too, and make sure nobody posts out of turn.

  6. False Flag, or just an idiot? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suppose it's possible that someone is trying to invalidate any legitimate responses from the public on this subject by doing this.
    I also suppose it's possible that some well-meaning idiot is doing it thinking they're helping the cause of Net Neutrality.
    Either way they need to knock it the hell off. Stop attempting to subvert the will of the people.

    1. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's obviously an idiot. You can tell by the premise.

      Welfare programs are expensive. An undeveloped economy can't afford welfare programs; a highly-developed economy can implement more-effective welfare for lower costs than scaled-beyond-sustainable older welfare programs.

      Feudalism, baronies, and serfdom allowed countries to flourish for hundreds of years. Poor houses--prisons amounting to forced labor camps for the poor, reducing the cost of feeding them by using them as cheap labor--worked for decades after the industrial revolution. Modern welfare systems are threatened by newer systems like an expanded social security.

      The Internet has grown in scope. The things that worked in the past won't continue to work when the Internet is a different thing, just like governments don't continue to function when economies are different things.

    2. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose it's possible that someone is trying to invalidate any legitimate responses from the public on this subject by doing this. I also suppose it's possible that some well-meaning idiot is doing it thinking they're helping the cause of Net Neutrality. Either way they need to knock it the hell off. Stop attempting to subvert the will of the people.

      In case you hadn't noticed, the will of the people is dead. The average citizen doesn't have a fucking clue what Net Neutrality is, nor do they give a shit enough to care.

      It's the entire reason why it will ultimately be defeated by those who maintain Control.

    3. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's not even a bot. It's just SuperKendall entering them all manually.

    4. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh, well then, I guess I'll just drop my pants, roll over onto my back, and invite them to violate my anus.
      ..or, instead, maybe I'll keep fighting, and encourage others to keep fighting, rather than being an abject coward like some people, who do just roll over and play dead? Know anyone like that, Geekmux??? If you do you really should tell them to show some backbone and fight for what's right. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Let's not allow evil to triumph, shall we?

      Sometimes you have to fight for something for the sake of everyone, even if they don't understand what it is you're fighting for or why you're doing it.

    5. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False representation, the death knell to any representative republic.

      Useful to proclaim massive support for a cause regardless of how it's used, without evidence. Sadly, most will fall for it hoping to support the underdog, regardless of what outcome is desired.

      There's no stopping it now, the stage is already set. All we wait for now, is for the curtain to rise....

    6. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Oh, well then, I guess I'll just drop my pants, roll over onto my back, and invite them to violate my anus. ..or, instead, maybe I'll keep fighting, and encourage others to keep fighting, rather than being an abject coward like some people, who do just roll over and play dead? Know anyone like that, Geekmux??? If you do you really should tell them to show some backbone and fight for what's right. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Let's not allow evil to triumph, shall we? Sometimes you have to fight for something for the sake of everyone, even if they don't understand what it is you're fighting for or why you're doing it.

      I would agree 110% with you. Bot or not, the statement that was being repeated on the site was not false. Perhaps the frustrating part was the bot-writer realizing the only way the FCC site was going to get enough feedback to be forced to address was to automate it. Sadly, if we were to remove all of the automated bot-driven content, there is likely a pathetic amount of feedback being posted from actual citizens who care enough.

    7. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's the entire reason why it will ultimately be defeated by those who maintain Control."

      Uh, no. It'll be defeated by those who maintain control because the people who maintain control will IGNORE the will of the people. Why? Because they can.

    8. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Sadly, if we were to remove all of the automated bot-driven content, there is likely a pathetic amount of feedback being posted from actual citizens who care enough.

      My perusal of the comments, as well as the numbers from the article, refute this. The bot comments seem to constitute at most half (the article says 10%) of the more than 500,000 comments received. I'll grant that John Oliver's show is probably the proximate cause of nearly all of the real comments received, but that's okay, it's still real people taking the time to speak up.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Are we sure it is not just a legitimate campaign? Most of these have prewritten messages you just click a button to send to your local senator, or in this case to submit a comment to the FCC. Submitting the letter/email/comment can be so easy it is easy to forget you did anything (can could be queuing messages for days if the server is slow and got loads of response), Furthermore, I am not sure how they were ever able to get into contact with every single person on the face of the earth named John Smith, these comments do not comes with addresses or phone numbers.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    10. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, if we were to remove all of the automated bot-driven content, there is likely a pathetic amount of feedback being posted from actual citizens who care enough.

      My perusal of the comments, as well as the numbers from the article, refute this. The bot comments seem to constitute at most half (the article says 10%) of the more than 500,000 comments received. I'll grant that John Oliver's show is probably the proximate cause of nearly all of the real comments received, but that's okay, it's still real people taking the time to speak up.

      500,000 comments. Coming from a population of over 300 million citizens.

      Less than 1% tends to confirm previous assessments regarding the average give-a-shit factor.

    11. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is expose the masses to "safe levels" of fluoride, mercury, aluminum, etc., rid public education of critical thinking, tell the masses how wheat and sugar will cure obesity, ensure insurance provides as little as possible aid for neurological illness... I mean developmental "delays", kill the love of learning and replace it with lots of reality TV, and encourage the masses to shun anyone different.

      There, fixed it for you. That is the perfect recipe for ensuring that Team Evil will triump! That is what we're going for here, right?

    12. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      As I just stated on a different subject: If you don't even understand the issue, it's importance, or that you even have a say in the matter, then it's rather hard to HAVE a choice in the matter. Authoritarian Dictatorships and things functionally similar to them rely on fostering ignorance in the subject people. I'm sure ISPs are perfectly happy to do what they can to keep people in the dark, if not flat-out mis-inform them, so they either ignore the whole subject, or make the wrong choice.

    13. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, it's another useless cowardly piece of shit who rolls over and lets them fuck him in the ass. Just kill yourself, you're making a bad example of yourself.

    14. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      In case you hadn't noticed, the will of the people is dead. The average citizen doesn't have a fucking clue what Net Neutrality is, nor do they give a shit enough to care.

      It's the entire reason why it will ultimately be defeated by those who maintain Control.

      Problem is, "will of the people" also includes the people who believe the divine will of Trump is beyond contestation. The don't need to understand they might lose their healthcare or see their Netflix bill double, because glorious leader is doing what is best for them.

      A big flaw in democracy is that you really can't fix stupid.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    15. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree 110% with you. Bot or not, the statement that was being repeated on the site was not false.

      Looks false to me.

      "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years."

      Except it is precedented, from the days of John Adams, to Abe Lincoln, to Woodrow Wilson, there is no evidence of any innovation smothered, economy damaged, or job creation obstructed. Furthermore, the Internet was not subject to a bipartisan light-touch, but rather a mixed regulatory reform and openness effort.

      Perhaps the frustrating part was the bot-writer realizing the only way the FCC site was going to get enough feedback to be forced to address was to automate it

      Any bot-writer who thought an automatic spam screed was worthwhile is only demonstrating their own stupidity.

      Sadly, if we were to remove all of the automated bot-driven content, there is likely a pathetic amount of feedback being posted from actual citizens who care enough.

      Fine, we'll poll every American.

    16. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by swillden · · Score: 2

      Sadly, if we were to remove all of the automated bot-driven content, there is likely a pathetic amount of feedback being posted from actual citizens who care enough.

      My perusal of the comments, as well as the numbers from the article, refute this. The bot comments seem to constitute at most half (the article says 10%) of the more than 500,000 comments received. I'll grant that John Oliver's show is probably the proximate cause of nearly all of the real comments received, but that's okay, it's still real people taking the time to speak up.

      500,000 comments. Coming from a population of over 300 million citizens.

      The comment period is open until August.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's both a false-flag AND the WH tactic to tackle the subject.

      They will tell us to our face that the whole place was DDOS'd over and over by enemies of freedom, *but* that they were able to filter out the storm of hackers and pick out the real comments.

      That is to say: They'll throw out all the real comments, keep the bot's, and accuse hillary of trying to be re-elected. Anyone who disagrees will be shot under the fake news act.

    18. Re:False Flag, or just an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best argument against Democracy is a 10 minute conversation with the average voter.
      -Churchill

  7. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumpies and their Russian cohorts at it again.

    Let's see who comes out of the woodwork in this Slashdot thread!

  8. so its just like Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somehow Facebook got attached to the FCC's site

    And politicians will use the bot coverage (or call it "trending") to do what they planned on doing at the beginning.

    expect a pro-NN bot spewage to hit the FCC soon-ish.

  9. Bot chow for the rest of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I urge the Federal Communications Commission to continue their sensible regulation of the internet known as Title II.

  10. Done before by 'future of tv' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A similar technique was used by 'The Future of Television Coalition'. You 'signed' a petition on their website and they blasted a form letter comment to the FCC's #UnlockTheBox docket in support of giving pay television companies all the control they desire.

  11. It's always the right-wingers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny that it always seems to be the right-wingers pulling stunts like this. Not surprising though. What do you expect from a philosophy (conservatism) that places absolute individualistic self-interest above everything else, including morality and ethics.

  12. Reach of 100,000 hands by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet

    It is arguably overreach -- to take over such a massive thing unenvisioned by Congress. However, if that is the botwrangler's concern (it isn't) this is not helpful to your argument.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  13. Easy to ignore by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    Amateurish. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  14. It wasn't the wild west that made the interner... by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    The wild west aspect didn't make the net flourish, it was the fact it was for nerds. Once the plebs got into the mix everything got screwed up, one aspect of which is they are dumb and desperate enough to be taken advantage of, leading to a need for regulations like net neutrality to ensure nerds (the people who the internet was built by/for) don't end up in some bureaucratic mess with ISPs demanding an extra cost for every service used (or worse, hosted.)

  15. An example by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    of how to win friends and influence people.

    Not.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  16. A distraction? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    The attempt seems pitifully inept. To me, it seems designed to grab attention, which makes me suspicious that something else is going on. Distraction from some other part of the process, or for something completely unrelated?

    Of course, it could just be a script kiddie or some other idiot. Hanlon's razor may apply here: "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:A distraction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Hanlon's razor may apply here: "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

      You're ironically combining Hanlon's Razor and a famous Arthur C. Clarke quote.

      -Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" or "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

      -"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke

  17. but surely dragons aren't mammals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    MOAR dragon tits on Game of Thrones!

  18. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Helping" the country. You mean like making promises to obstruct all legislation and failing to duly appoint Supreme Court justices? Yeah, sounds like the DNC is the only problem here. Keks.

  19. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The POTUS will do the destruction on his own with his minions. He is the king of making accusations without any evidence. I see it as an attempt to distract the people. This shouldn't be about political parties. It's about what is right for the people, not the corporate overlords that our government officials pander to.

  20. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, we had an election a few months ago. We also have an entire political party, the DNC, pretending the election wasn't valid.

    I would argue that an election is a better representation of the will of the people than an online forum is. If the people that oppose what the FCC is doing won't accept results of an actual election, that hasn't shown any actual evidence of fraud despite how many times they claim it, why should those in charge of the FCC now listen to random comments from bots?

    The DNC, and its supporters, are in for real disappointment until they grow up and actually help the country instead of attempting to destroy it because of who won the election.

    Look, we had an election a few months ago. We also have an entire political party, the DNC, pretending the election wasn't valid.

    I would argue that an election is a better representation of the will of the people than an online forum is. If the people that oppose what the FCC is doing won't accept results of an actual election, that hasn't shown any actual evidence of fraud despite how many times they claim it, why should those in charge of the FCC now listen to random comments from bots?

    The DNC, and its supporters, are in for real disappointment until they grow up and actually help the country instead of attempting to destroy it because of who won the election.

  21. Go FCC Yourself dot Com by Bratch · · Score: 1
    --
    Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
  22. FCC incompetence on full display by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2
  23. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, we had an election a few months ago. We also have an entire political party, the DNC, pretending the election wasn't valid.

    I would argue that an election is a better representation of the will of the people than an online forum is. If the people that oppose what the FCC is doing won't accept results of an actual election, that hasn't shown any actual evidence of fraud despite how many times they claim it, why should those in charge of the FCC now listen to random comments from bots?

    The DNC, and its supporters, are in for real disappointment until they grow up and actually help the country instead of attempting to destroy it because of who won the election.

  24. Well they said it was a *Distributed* DOS attack by tlambert · · Score: 2

    Well they said it was a *Distributed* DOS attack...

    What's more distributed than all the devices of a certain broadband provider, and who would have the list of names and addresses associated with those routers?

  25. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keeps repeating himself, word for word, over and over again

    Faggot? Dunno about that, but definitely autist. Did you escape your nanny?

  26. Who is paying? by hackel · · Score: 1

    There's no way some random hacker felt that passionately *against* the concept of net neutrality...right? I mean, the only people who support it are luddite ultra-conservatives. Someone must have been paid handsomely for this. (I'm looking at you, Verizon.)

    1. Re:Who is paying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      More likely it's a false flag by a pro-net neutrality group. They're the only ones who feel strongly about the whole issue.

      Big corporations have enough money and political expertise not to have to rely on transparent script kiddy nonsense like this.

    2. Re:Who is paying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the net neutrality comment is essentially a distraction (as there seems little reason to astroturf the issue in that blatant a manner) and that someone was instead probing the site or testing/promoting a spoofing script & database of personal information.

  27. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, we had an election a few months ago. We also have an entire political party, the DNC, pretending the election wasn't valid.

    Keeps repeating himself, word for word, over and over again

    I would argue that an election is a better representation of the will of the people than an online forum is. If the people that oppose what the FCC is doing won't accept results of an actual election, that hasn't shown any actual evidence of fraud despite how many times they claim it, why should those in charge of the FCC now listen to random comments from bots?

    Faggot? Dunno about that, but definitely autist. Did you escape your nanny?

    The DNC, and its supporters, are in for real disappointment until they grow up and actually help the country instead of attempting to destroy it because of who won the election.

  28. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russian troll bot

  29. Democracy by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Democracy in action, Fuck Yeah!! About time the corporations with a vested interest in the outcome can properly voice their concerns to squeeze out the humans.

  30. Satan@hell.com by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Although his server farm runs on endless power from lakes of boiling sulfur, we could probably take out his Comcast fiber.

  31. F you bot maker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably some Russian or Chinese hired to illegitimize the rest of us. No one wants their internet throttled or even have their ISP with the capability to monitor that intimately to do so in the first place.

  32. The posts are real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a web site, that told people exactly what to post, including how to copy and paste.

  33. Re:Elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russian troll bot

    Nah, more likely 4chan /b/tard.

  34. CAPTCHA ? by sh0rtie · · Score: 1

    Why are they not using CAPTCHA or similar bot spotting measures ?, the days of just accepting a naked form post are long gone, even your lowly Wordpress installation has the option for comments thanks to bots, you would think the GOV would know this.

  35. water well not poisoned (wait, was it?) by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Whenever I read these articles it gets me thinking about when water wells are poisoned. Even after they are cleaned up there is always suspicion about how safe is it to drink the water. Even a rumor casts doubts, it then becomes nobody uses it unless other options have been exhausted (i.e. you will die in a matter of hours unless you drink this water now).

    Besides issues of Net Neutrality, what about telecommunications and broadcasters? If they don't follow FCC regs, will there be consequences? What about companies that sell radios? Is there someone competent they meet Part 90, 95, 15 (and other applicable Parts)? All these items from cellphone jammers to wireless video transmitters that operate in same freq band as aircraft transponders, are we confident FCC will properly deal with these mischief makers?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  36. Cyber-Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    by little bitches. George Soros and MediaMeddles are the new script kiddies.

  37. Counter-bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess its beyond our gov to actually setup a bayesian filter. If only there was some technology for filtering comments...

    https://www.google.com/#q=comment+spam+protection

  38. Battle of the Bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And someone creates a bot to counter that bot.
    And so it begun, the Battle of the Bots.

  39. I think I found one of the sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "American Commitment" is hosting a pre-filled form.
    http://action.americancommitment.org/ctas/advocacy-251-repeal-obamas-internet-regulations/letter

  40. How can this be? by will_die · · Score: 1

    We just had another post claiming that the DDOS and use of bots against the FCC was fake.

  41. 58,000 identical comments... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    ... does not a "DDOS" entail.

  42. The other side... by JThundley · · Score: 1

    But many pro Net Neutrality commenters are also the same. This is because websites direct people on what to say or have an automated system that does it for them. They just have to put in their name and email and the website provides the rest. It's completely plausible that some anti-net-neutrality organizations are using the same tactic and technology.

  43. I take back my earlier comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I made two comments that several groups were forwarding peoples' concerns to the FCC form and that I didn't think that there was a real DDos. I take those back - apparently there may be according to those submissions. Whoever is doing that is obviously tampering with the public comment system and should be prosecuted.