Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked (hackernoon.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the disturbing-results dept.

Jeff Kao from Hacker Noon used natural language processing techniques to analyze net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC from April-October 2017 and found that at least 1.3 million pro-repeal net neutrality comments were faked. From the report: NY Attorney General Schneiderman estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans' identities were stolen and used in spam campaigns that support repealing net neutrality. My research found at least 1.3 million fake pro-repeal comments, with suspicions about many more. In fact, the sum of fake pro-repeal comments in the proceeding may number in the millions. In this post, I will point out one particularly egregious spambot submission, make the case that there are likely many more pro-repeal spambots yet to be confirmed, and estimate the public position on net neutrality in the "organic" public submissions. [The key findings include:]

1. One pro-repeal spam campaign used mail-merge to disguise 1.3 million comments as unique grassroots submissions.
2. There were likely multiple other campaigns aimed at injecting what may total several million pro-repeal comments into the system.
3. It's highly likely that more than 99% of the truly unique comments were in favor of keeping net neutrality.

10 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Better proof than stats is needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    We need more conclusive proof than just a statistical model and analysis. Does he have any actual evidence to present to us?

    1. Re:Better proof than stats is needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pick 100 names from the tens of thousands of people who supposedly posted "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation..." and look up their phone numbers.

      Call them and ask if they posted that comment.

      When they all ask what the hell you're talking about, there's your evidence.

    2. Re: Better proof than stats is needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Learn to read, Trumpies.

      One of the main reasons I can never forgive Trump or those who supported him, is not just how much he lies, but he actively tries to discredit and destroy legitimate sources of information so that you have no choice but to trust his people. This is the kind of crap that helped him win, just applied to another topic. It will likely be used ever more frequently in the future. Seriously, at this point is their anyone who hasn't had their personal information stolen? I've got two or three of the reports in the past few years, and I'm pretty careful, and none of them were through a mistake on my part.

      Years ago, I never could have predicted that truth might become the battle of our time. Sure there will be some that will see through all the BS, but will there be enough?

      Either way, if you start to see the internet divided into packages, it might be time to begin to panic, since you can bet most of the major sources of information will end up controlled by only a handful of rather powerful companies like Sinclair does now to local stations.

      Just think, maybe in 10-20 years we will have to VPN to a foreign nation for accurate news, well assuming they haven't already blocked VPNs. I vaguely recall that Russia and China already had a somewhat successful program there. No doubt some terrorist will abuse the gun laws to buy infinite firearms, ammunition, and maybe even manage to get lots of bomb making materials, and then somewhere along the way will use a VPN once and then they will have an excuse to ban them.

    3. Re: Better proof than stats is needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Years ago, I never could have predicted that truth might become the battle of our time.

      Really? You should read a decent history book because it's always been that way.

      Galileo wasn't scientifically debated with the merits of geocentrism versus heliocentrism. His observations were declared heretical, he was placed under house arrest, threatened with physical torture, had his books (and those of Copernicus before him) banned and at least some of his opponents refused to even look through a telescope. And he was lucky -- others had been burned at the stake for his level of boldness.

      The purpose of the Roman practice of "bread and circuses" had a similar intention, keep the people distracted and amused and they stop thinking so much about what their leaders are doing. Serious honest inquiry is of course an enemy of this system.

      Socrates was put to death not because he harmed anyone unjustly, but for "corrupting the youth" and he was falsely accused of taking money to teach (a crime in his day, for teaching was every citizen's job). In fact the Athenians feared what would become of the civic duty of teaching if it were made into a profession practiced by a select few.

      Those are just easy examples off the top of my head. History is absolutely filled with them. Power in excess has always tended this way.

    4. Re: Better proof than stats is needed. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, the media actively and frequently lies about Trump. Do we not remember the koi pond? That happened a week ago. They used edited video that zooms in on Trump to only show his face and prevents the viewer from seeing what Japanese Prime Minister Abe was doing at a key point of the short event.

      Why was Abe edited out? Perhaps because he took his entire box of fish food and dumped it into the pond. Trump followed Abe's lead and did the same seconds later.

      In other words - nothing to see here. But with the zoom edit cutting Abe out, the viewer or reader - with an assist from the caption - is led to believe only Trump dumped his box.

      The whole world saw them lie, and you're gonna say they're still credible?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  2. Just in time by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    for it to be investigated by nobody ever because this entire thing is crooked AF and that asshole behind it is a Verizon shill. He should be removed from office and charged with bribery and treason.

  3. Just a hunch by boudie2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a feeling that, and let me go out on a limb here, this may not be the last story we see about net neutrality.

  4. How many were Russian bots? by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With the apparent integration between the Republican party and Russia it's getting harder to tell the home-grown corruption from the interference of a hostile foreign power.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  5. Re:And there we stopped reading. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it might be more accurate to say there is very little overt racism. The racism is still there, but much diminished and driven underground. It doesn't manifest as 'I won't accept a black president,' but rather as 'are we sure he is a real American?'

    Do you think that the birther conspiracy theory could ever have thrived for a white president?

    There's also statistical evidence that even unconscious racism is very much alive. You can see it in fields like criminal sentencing - when comparing convictions for the same crime across race, some races get noticeably higher average sentences than others.

    America may have embarked towards a post-racist society, and it's gone a long way down that road, but it hasn't reached the destination yet.

  6. Re:And there we stopped reading. by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it might be more accurate to say there is very little overt racism. The racism is still there, but much diminished and driven underground.

    The big problem is we use the same semantics to describe a phenomenon that really operates on a spectrum, not a binary value. I don't know that describing a 1935 KKK lynching supporter and some guy who doesn't like contemporary urban black culture as both being "racist" tells us very much about racism.

    I also think it sets up a permanent state of racial hostility. At the end of the day, racism is much more about cultural and values conflict than it is about the collection of biological factors we call race. It's perfectly legitimate to dislike elements of cultures different than your own, but if we keep describing personal cultural preferences as "racism" we will always have racism. You can't ever achieve a world where every person accepts every person different than them equally, especially when it involves wide gaps in cultural beliefs and practices.

    Do you think that the birther conspiracy theory could ever have thrived for a white president?

    John Kennedy was accused of being a papist. It was widely questioned whether Kennedy would uphold the Constitution or whether he would obey edicts from the pope. He gave a major speech to a group of Protestants to defend his personal Catholic faith and stand up for the separation of church and state. I find it very similar to the birther controversy.

    The largest problem with racial equality as a whole is that the goalposts are constantly moving and after a while it feel like they're being moved intentionally and cynically to maintain a political coalition, not because there's meaningful racial inequality.