Slashdot Mirror
More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked (hackernoon.com)
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.
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.
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.
It wouldn't have mattered if 100% of the comments were against net neutrality. The politicians are paid for and big businesses wants this, so it's happening. Now bend over and lube up so the raping won't hurt as much.
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.
We need to do less with HASTE! As long as we do nothing about it the free market will work out a solution and we can avoid communism and loose our freedoms and end up like Cuba if we investigtate.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
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.
Actually, a real solution would have been if nobody had written up a form letter for other people to send in the first place, and everyone who cared enough to write had submitted their own commentary, however ineloquently worded they may have thought they might be.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I bet they were considered anyway even if they made no serious legal argument whatsoever
Twinstiq, game news
It's ridiculous how stupid and ignorant everybody is, except for those who agree with me.
Signed,
Genius
No identities were "stolen". It is not possible to "steal" an identity.
What should be said is that the crime of IMPERSONATION occurred and the RELYING PARTY made a MISTAKE of fact and law in RELYING on the IMPERSONATOR and is therefore liable both criminally and civilly for the result/consequence of that mistaken reliance.
At least that is how it works in the free world (China, Russia, Burma, Canada, etc.). Perhaps communist/fascist countries such as the US have somewhat different law from the rest of the world -- they are certainly one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the solar system.
Fuck you moron. This is about taking ALL protection away from ISP abuse and rent seeking. Only a moron would claim its "just about reclassifying them as an information service"
Right, we'll be SO much better served if msmash continues to post stories about mobile homes while marking submissions critical of social media as "spam".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Wouldn’t have mattered. https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
The cork-schnorkeler in charge of the FCC would have schnorkled the corks he was beholden to schnorkel no matter how the comments would have shaken out.
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
There's no comparison: Trump is a complete nutjob.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So you agree it would totally fuck the internet? THANKS!
The internet IS a utility and should be protected like one (see below).. if that wasn't possible maybe you'd have a point...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Sure, no argument. But you're comparing things he said after he was elected - hindsight is 20/20. How can you punish those who elected him on things he hadn't said yet? And yes I realize he said a lot of shit before he was elected, but so did Hillary (bald faced lies being one of them). So to many, the choice was: go with the usual corrupt politician choice, or take a chance on a crazy idiot who wants to create jobs for them.
This is about building the great Firewall of USA. The Public internet Started under Title II in the 90s, as just an aspect of Phone Service. During the Bush years, they were reclassified as Title I, for a while, then Obama got in office and his FCC head made it Title II again.
The problem really is this: 2016's election was a kind of political Coup of sorts on both parties.
What happened was, that there was racist blowback from Obama by racist white voters, and displaced workers. Some of the complaints were legitimate, most were not. The Human species is likely doomed because of this. A fraudulent Demagogue, rose to power in the Republican party, and captured the nomination. Using voter suppression laws put in by Republican state legislatures in the north, he managed to disenfranchise just enough of the poor and minority voters to reverse what would have been a Democratic Victory in a few key states. Keep in mind there were police raids in Indiana of the police shutting down Black majority Polling places where they were being registered to vote.
One of the reasons for the existence of the electoral college, is that the electors are supposed to see a transparent fraud, demagogue, and liar, and take into account the nature of the popular vote. There was no clearer cause for the electors to reverse their votes, and install Hilary Clinton. But alot of the electors were staunch republicans. They replaced any electors who even tried to stop this.I think there was one guy who tried to vote for the John Kasich?
Keep in mind that the forces of the Old Confederacy has more of a vote than it should anyway.
Now they have until the next election to try and solidify their grip on power. I can foresee more voter suppression based on race, religion, or political affiliation. The cable and Telecom companies have an interest in controlling communication, to make sure that the US Never becomes a liberal country again. See since the Bush years, the way it has worked is, the right passes some horrible draconian law, and it gets reversed by a Judge that deems it unconstitutional.
There's too much money to be made from this kind of Fascism the far right wants. The far right controls the government now. They are engaging in violence and fraud to get their way. In the past, this has been done at the state level in the deep south. But because the US didn't deal with it then, the way they should have they grew and now have taken over the Federal Government.
Should the Electors of the Electoral College Reversed their vote? Yes. I think so.
Can the 2018 Election in the US House Senate fix this? Well it can slow it down. But unless some far left Justice Democrats are elected, I don't see any other way out of this than Revolution/Civil War. I fully expect the right to use every dirty trick it can to stay in power. The last liberal President we really had was Bill Clinton.
Ok, this was clearly an organized campaign by one of the big providers, and is it is blatantly illegal on many fronts, not to mention a direct attack on the democratic process.
There needs to be a full scale no holds barred investigation into this, and the corporations responsible need to be held accountable, including jail time and fund freezing for every traitor who new about this, and a literal fine so large that the treasonous companies will have difficult recovering from it.
Ajit Pai is corrupt and need to go, but more than just his head need to roll on this. And unequivocally, heads need to roll for this.
No, but the likelihood of finding truth on that site approaches zero.
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.
Interesting that the company only publicly published one report, has one leader, and a rather ineligible GSA document.
(I stopped there after reading the report.)
I think I've found my candidate for the 2017 Poe's Law Award.
See that "Preview" button?
> This business of submitting comments to the FCC is not a vote. It was never represented as such. Nobody ever even implied that a huge volume of like-minded submissions would sway their agenda. They wanted legal arguments that they may not have thought of, and that's it.
Legal arguments, yes, and practical arguments and suggestions. I didn't think that the year and a half that the net neutrality rules were in place were all THAT much different than the previous years, so on this issue my participation was limited to commenting on the very early proposals (one of which would have made it illegal to block spam), but I was very involved in shaping the 2257 and DMCA rules.
I, and some business associates, commented extensively on 2257 and DMCA regulations based on the practical business effects of the proposed regulations, and the government made several changes to each draft based on our comments. As you said, these were things the regulatory agency may not have thought of, or areas where they didn't realize the impact until we pointed it out.
It's unfortunate that none of us foresaw ahead of time how badly DMCA would need significant penalties for recklessly filing false complaints. That's a major omission in DMCA which has caused a lot of problems. The implementation of safe-harbor provisions of DMCA we ended up with is quite good in that web hosting companies and other service providers aren't afraid of being sued for customers' copyright infringement like they were before DMCA was implemented, and they have a well-defined, reasonable process for handling infringement. It sucks that process has been abused by frivilous complaints where there is no actual infringement.
As you said, the comment process is NOT a vote, especially not a "yes or no" vote, and certainly not a Facebook meme contest. It's meant to bring up issues the agency wasn't aware of and to suggest minor changes which make the regulations more practical to implement.
As an example, under a set of regulations I successfully commented on, each small business was required to keep certain records which include personal information about people who had made products they sell, people they had no contact with. The businesses had purchased items from a distributor, who purchased them from the producers, who employed the workers. It wasn't practical for the retailers to keep records about the workers who made the stuff. Through the comment process, we got the proposed regulations changed so that the distributors could hold the records. The distributors already served as a central clearinghouse for the products, so it worked out well for the to be the centralized keeper of records too.
Re "reclassify ISP's you don't need to worry about the LEC classification barrier and we can have municipal fibre open up to any little business that wants to run their own ISP and can fill the minimum requirements."
Thats the good change. No longer can a large telco claim they are the only network able to support NN. No other network could enter the market was is not totally federally NN compliant.
That color of law federal lobby effort held back a lot of new network innovation around the USA.
Steep compliance costs only an existing telco could afford to cover.
With NN removed any locally supported network in any city, state can be a network again. What can a big telco say? That the competition is not NN ready?
That if a existing large telco does not have a protected monopoly then telco capitalism fails?
With the removal of NN, one more color of law method to keep new products and services out of the US market is removed.
Big telcos should have just kept NN, it could have been shaped into a very powerful legal barrier to entry.
Municipal fibre can find a town full of users and connect them to a long list of new ISP in the area.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Google, Apple, and Facebook are literally three of the top 5 biggest companies on Earth and they are all pro-net neutrality.
Do you trust Zuck and Eric Schmidt to look out for you?
Of course not, that would be naive. I expect them to look out for their own interests, same as any other corporation.
It's just a rare treat when that happens to also be what I want. Usually that isn't the case. Unlike lil 'ol me, they actually stand a good chance of getting what they want. In this particular instance it's a win-win all around.
Who said anything about trusting suspected sociopaths? Did you think you were making a rational argument, there? Ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle?
Time to get into the proxy business. or just an affiliate. :P
https://www.hidemyass.com/en-c...
ya... bite me
[($)]
Yeah but I'm reserving my optimism. Just because this door is being opened by the NN repeal doesn't mean telcos don't already have a full on assault ready to close it again *without* NN. After all they've surely got plenty of senators they've been sucking off in preparation to this.
All that said I don't actually live in America so despite the fact I find this whole situation interesting it doesn't actually effect me. I've got a 2Gbps fibre line to my home for about $50USD a month because I live in a country where backbone is municipal and there's a free market for service providers - but I also live in a populated part of a country that is tiny in size compared to America. There's no easy solution in America, but there are free as in freedom solutions that could show the power of the free market; and I really hope the repeal of NN is an actual precursor to that.
A common carrier operates a communications network for hire to carry customers data essentially unchanged. An information service is a commercial publisher that supplies data through a communications network (typically, using a common carrier), or otherwise processes and store customers data. ISPs are common carriers while web site or cloud storage operators are information services.
Reclassifying ISPs as information services is in blatant contradiction with those definitions (written in the telecommunications act) and enables ISPs to tamper with customers data as they see fit because, all of a sudden, they are treated as providers of data that’s merely consumed by passive customers. It’s a complete affront to the public, not only as a base money grab but also as an encroachment on our freedom to communicate. For example, most ISPs have their terms of service that prohibit home users from operating a server. Imagine a telephone companies saying “you can only use your phone line to make (but not receive) calls”! I don’t need my ISP to tell me what to do with the (virtual) line I’m leasing, anymore that I need the electric company to tell me how I may and may not use the electric energy that I’m buying.
Perhaps... but I think, more likely, that was a retaliation they offered afterward in part because of how annoyed they were with the spam. If that had actually been their original intent, there's absolutely no reason that they could not have said so up front unless you presume that they weren't really interested in such opinions from the start.
I'm not saying that this necessarily wasn't the case, mind you.... but I think that an explanation for why they are ignoring so many letters having to do with the nature of those letters after they were received is a more rational conclusion than implying some unspoken agenda they were alleged to have had right from the very beginning.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
I suppose it's the nerd equivalent of the 2016 elections.
As an example, under a set of regulations I successfully commented on, each small business was required to keep certain records which include personal information about people who had made products they sell, people they had no contact with.
Title 18, Section 2257?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Do you trust Zuck and Eric Schmidt to look out for you?
I trust Zuck and Eric a lot more than I trust Comcast.
Zuck and Eric don't have monopoly control over the series of tubes leading to my house. Comcast does.
actually, id say there is a fairly easy comparison.
F!_!cked one way or the other.
Makes you think half the world has a grudge against America and scores to settle....
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.
The issue is more complex. The reason for the change from IS to Util was because a supreme court case ruled aspects of a 2010 bill were not enforceable. The 2010 bill was a result of another supreme court ruling on a previous bill.
The result is that reverting the classification means that the protections in previous laws -- which have now been overturned -- are known not to exist.
The FCC proposal is essentially that the ISP industry can self-regulate. The opposing position is that the ISP industry -- consider an oligarchy due to the widespread lack of alternatives -- will never side with the consumer.
The pro-FCC position is that this will lead to an expansion and upgrade of existing networks. The counter position is that ISPs will focus on anti-consumer methods instead.
It seems unlikely that there would be any immediate additional upgrades/expansions as these regulations have a shelf life of 4 years at minimum and the rollback is unpopular across the spectrum. It would seem better to trim off p2p file sharing to get the immediate cost savings, ditch anything rural, then squeeze anything that threatens the high-profit services you offer. That gets an immediate profit even if these regulations get rolled back.
Did you miss the second sentence of my post?
> Just because this door is being opened by the NN repeal doesn't mean telcos don't already have a full on assault ready to close it again *without* NN
Don't mistake an air of hope for actual optimism.
Charlottesville was how long ago exactly? I'm pretty sure it happened after 1991 but maybe someone should fact check me on that..
Yep. Always best to ignore the will of anyone who doesn't live up to your arbitrary standards. Democracy in action!
There is almost no real racism in the US,
Fuck you, and also, fuck you.
We've had equality since about 1991 when Clarence Thomas was appointed to the supreme court.
You're either a compleat idiot or a racist piece of shit. There's no third way, unless it's both.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is no low low enough for Corporate America to sink to.
Yep, we went through several drafts of 2257 rules
Not saying that the entire process isn't shady as hell, but I'm honestly a bit puzzled why anyone would bother... it's been obvious to anyone with half a clue that Pai was going to ram this through with zero consideration of opposing viewpoints, so what's the point in faking a million comments either way?
Log in or piss off.
A description of the process from the Federal Register :
The notice-and-comment process enables anyone to submit a comment on any part of the proposed rule. This process is not like a ballot initiative or an up-or-down vote in a legislature. An agency is not permitted to base its final rule on the number of comments in support of the rule over those in opposition to it. At the end of the process, the agency must base its reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking record, consisting of the comments, scientific data, expert opinions, and facts accumulated during the prerule and proposed rule stages.
So whoever thought that flooding the site with automated comments could tip the balance either way (and there were millions
on both sides of the issue) was just flat wrong.
As is everyone on here moaning that this is a harbinger of the fall of democracy in the USA.
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!
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.
Do you think that the birther conspiracy theory could ever have thrived for a white president?
Yes, I do, if he had "written" an autobiography claiming that he was foreign born, and if his background as presented by the media was largely mysterious, as if he had sprung full grown from the head of Zeus.
Obama is the only president so far who even could have had such a birth controversy swirling around him, and it wasn't because he is half black.
Us Irish didn't get to be really white until the Catholics were integrated into the religious right. The Ku Klux Klan in specific hated us as much as the black people. I disagree with your point because, skin tone to the contrary, we weren't white enough to count. See also the gag at the end of "Blazing Saddles".
Also, moving goalposts? Man, first black people can't be slaves, then they get to vote, now they expect traffic stops to not end in extrajudicial death sentences. Where oh where will it end? And they just keep voting Democratic! It's not like the Republican president appointed a famous racist to the Attorney General position.
This is the future if we are not careful:
https://www.meo.pt/telemovel/t...
This is for mobile, but you end having to pay an extra $5 for every "bundle" of mainstream web sites (Video, Social, Messaging) that you want unlimited access.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Well, in the blue states at least (especially in the diverse ones like CA). The red states, not so much. Exhibit A: Alabama where an racist bigot pedophile will likely win the senate seat.
~X~
Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding âstory'
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Correct! You cannot compare a nutjob with a burlap marionette stuck in a loom.
The first one is completely unpredictable, an unknown quantity. A newcomer, unfamiliar with the centuries old entrenched extra-political infrastructure that molds, forms, and produces political candidates for the entertainment of the masses.
The second one is completely predictable, a known quantity, and beholden to so many interests, both foreign and domestic, that you can rest assured their behavior will be exactly what you expect. Well, maybe not you, a voter and therefore not privy to the machinations that create a major party candidate, but certainly the people who put her up to it and paid for it. Therein lies the problem with her. With all of those strings attached you would think that at least one of the ends terminated with US voters.
So yeah, we dodged a bullet but now were facing a feces-smeared naked madman with a machete. Swings and roundabouts.
Either way, either leader, either party: they would not be working for your interests. Don't take it so hard.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
It's OK.. I get it. I struck a nerve when I outed your obvious nationality...
At the end of the process, the agency must base its reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking record, consisting of the comments, scientific data, expert opinions, and facts accumulated during the prerule and proposed rule stages.
That they're supposed to do that, but instead and in direct contradiction to that, while openly lying about what the facts are, are simply doing the bidding of the big telecom companies, who the chairman is very clearly a shill for, acting indisputably against the best interests of the country, is why this is a problem for democracy. I don't think anyone is claiming that the *only* problem is that they don't base their policies on the popular vote of submitted comments. But as the passage you cited suggests, that is *part* of it.
It's not one example, it's just the latest outrage. It happens all the time. Your news doesn't report on it? Well I kind of doubt they're going to tell you when they're lying. I mean, duh. Watch the alternative media, get out of your bubble. It's been lie after lie after lie. Deliberate lies. I mean, just look at this.
Here's an example of the kind of propaganda the MSM engages in all the damn time. The following New York Times article contains a "minor factual error" that's not at all germane to the topic of the story: it refers to Philando Castille as "an unarmed black cafeteria worker" despite all sorts of reporting to the contrary that he was armed, informed the cop that he was armed, and was high as a kite at the time he reached down fast and sudden to grab his license. That's the sort of "tiny alleged problem" that matters in context.
New York Times prejudiced against India.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I don't think anyone is claiming that the *only* problem is that they don't base their policies on the popular vote of submitted comments. But as the passage you cited suggests, that is *part* of it.
I read that part of the passage as referring to the content of the comments, not the volume (and relevant, substantive content at that -- not stuff that reduces down to "the future of our democracy hangs on my ability to receive unlimited NetFlix for a low fixed price"). That's consistent with what I've read about the process elsewhere. But please let me know if you know of something that clearly states otherwise.
Do you think that the birther conspiracy theory could ever have thrived for a white president?
Only if McCain had become President.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Also, moving goalposts? Man, first black people can't be slaves, then they get to vote, now they expect traffic stops to not end in extrajudicial death sentences. Where oh where will it end? And they just keep voting Democratic!
This is an example of moving the goalposts. The cops stop something like 2 million people per year and the number of "extrajudicial death sentences" is in the single digits per year. Nearly all are litigated by juries and the police found not guilty by juries. The evidence presented have shown the "community narrative" to be factually wrong at best and outright lies at worst.
None of this is to suggest that the police abuse of power isn't happening, but that it's not really a byproduct of racism, it' a byproduct of statutory authority that gives the police broad authority to kill people in ambiguous situations. But because all the outrage and enmity is focused on the racism of the police, we don't really do anything to increase the police criminal liability for shootings because all the energy is focused on the sideshow of racism.
Years of experience have taught me never to click on anything with the word "goat" in the URL. What the heck were they thinking with that name?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.