Slashdot Mirror
99.7 Percent of Unique FCC Comments Favored Net Neutrality, Independent Analysis Finds (vice.com)
When a Stanford researcher removed all the duplicate and fake comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission last year, he found that 99.7 percent of public comments -- about 800,000 in all -- were pro-net neutrality. From a report: "With the fog of fraud and spam lifted from the comment corpus, lawmakers and their staff, journalists, interested citizens and policymakers can use these reports to better understand what Americans actually said about the repeal of net neutrality protections and why 800,000 Americans went further than just signing a petition for a redress of grievances by actually putting their concerns in their own words," Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford University, wrote in a blog post Monday. Singel released a report [PDF] Monday that analyzed the unique comments -- as in, they weren't a copypasta of one or dozens of other letters -- filed last year ahead of the FCC's decision to repeal federal net neutrality protections. That's from the 22 million total comments filed, meaning that more than 21 million comments were fake, bots, or organized campaigns.
It's terrible that they threw away all the results and claimed they were simply "fake." I'm glad someone has looked at this data. The entire process was a sham when we were told that our comments mattered.
--
Come on, Come all -- B. Bailey
on no issue, including net neutrality, is it believable that 99% were in favor...sounds wrong.
nothing to see here - move along
Form letters have long been a popular method for political causes. Though I personally believe there were a significant number of fake submissions too.
We already knew the public wanted to keep net neutrality, but it was the con artist and his cabal who went out of their way to use dead people to prove otherwise.
The FCC, headed by Ajit Pai, lied about having a meltdown because of "being under attack", lied about the number of people who were for repeal, and lied about the need to protect the people from the "scourge" of net neutrality.
And yet, their supporters will simply shrug their shoulders and yell, "BUT HILLARY!!!!", because lying is all they have.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
yum!
Elections in North Korea — and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq — were "won" with the winners getting not the measly 99%, but the nice and round 100% of the vote.
But that's nothing compared to a feat Putin has once accomplished — winning 146% of the vote...
Simply put, as Stalin once said it, "those who vote do not matter — those who count the votes matter". If it is the Vice (or a "researcher" Vice found acceptable) counting, 99.7% may be too low. Indeed, according to TFA, he accepted only 800K out 22 million (merely 3.6%!) of the comments — dismissing the other 96% as "noise".
What exactly was his methodology and could it, possibly, have been biased against those supporting the abolition?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So 'Copypasta' is a cromulent word now?
A way to vote for something you want or don't want.
The number of comments entered into the system has zero impact on the decision. Nobody at the FCC is counting them, nor should they. This isn't some official opinion poll being conducted here.
The PURPOSE of the public comments at the FCC is to obtain INFORMATION from the public that the FCC may not already have. So unless you are providing a unique prospective or some unique facts about the question being considered that you entered some unique comment into the system your opinion of the question doesn't mean anything. If you are just voicing an opinion in your comment, figure it gets round filed and you just wasted your time and the time of the poor slob at the FCC who's job it is to read and classify all these comments.
I'm sorry if you don't like this, but that's how the FCC works (actually not just the FCC, but other government "public comment" processes too). Most government processes don't care about doing opinion polls, that's the role of the political appointees anyway. So if you didn't like this result, or if you did, you need to vote accordingly.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's because liberals aren't violent, contrary to what talkshow pundits say for listeners and clicks. And conservatives tolerate liars as long as they are playing for the "right" team.
Either you're happy with Trump and his administration, or you're too feckless to do anything about it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
or organized campaigns.
I would hesitate to claim the anti-side wasn't often driven by organized campaigns, either, with many sites exhorting users to go file a letter.
Which is fine, but it's hardly unorganized.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
net neutrality had nothing to do with what an isp charges you, it said isp's could not charge netflix more for using up all the bandwidth. rates charged you are set by the local government who signs an exclusive contract with the local isp. doh.https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/10/15/2024241/997-percent-of-unique-fcc-comments-favored-net-neutrality-independent-analysis-finds#
nothing to see here - move along
Copypasta isn't as old as enbiggen, but it might be older than cromulent.
...the American People are now all-in for big gov't and eventually the socialist then communist results of too much of that. Again, like a previous post on a different but similar thread concerning the death of freedom on the USA, I'm glad I'm 71 and either won't see it, or won't be enslaved for long or on my way to one of the resultant death camps from that 20th century ideology responsible for 100 million deaths worldwide. Of course that won't happen because they will have to try to collect up all the guns first, and I will shoot the MF's that show up for mine, and they will kill me there, so no death camp for me...
Just keep heaping on the big gov't, sheeple.,..
Does this chabge anything in th slightest? Will it be reversed? Somebody losing his job?
We live in an age where there is no accountability. This is not the only place where people lied, and admitted guild. There are three letter organisations that admitted guild. Nothing changed. The cheaters won. They will win in the mnext few elections as well. And why not? It pays of.
I just hope that the next revolution is not a bloody one and that it takes place after I died. I do not see a serious change without one. Hope I am wrong.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Nope. "Cromulent" is from 1994. "Copypasta" might go as far back as 2006....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm surprised they were able to separate all comments into simply "for" or "against". My comment was to say that I want to see a more nuanced rethink of the neutrality concept with measurement requirements rather than "saving" an unrealistic philosophical statement with vague exceptions that benefits lawyers more than consumers. I say this as someone involved with filtering backbone traffic for security reasons- both the "treat all traffic equally" and the "except if you're doing network security" are way too open to interpretation.
There's a lot of effort to add little meaningful information here. Politics, as usual.
96. Not 94.
Don't spew dates from memory, either look them up, or preface your numbers with something like, "as far as I remember."
Copypasta was in widespread use in the software developer community long before that. As soon as "copy/paste" was a widespread feature of editors, it was ripe for this one. So you can't give some late date and be sure of it. You certainly can't state one in a construction that appears to create an absolute limit.
And to that end, I check and it was entered into the website urban dictionary in early 2006. So not, "might go back as far as 2006," but rather, "clearly was in widespread use by 2006." Unlike Cromulent, which was not in widespread use at all before being formally published on a TV show. A prior web forum citation from February 2006 used it casually and without comment, in a serious statement, indicating that it was considered known slang by the writer. The fact is, there is little interest in the etymology of the word copypasta, and nobody is going to bother to scrape IRC logs or old email list archives for the earliest use. It is a totally obvious play on words that was almost certainly used by thousands of witty wags before ever being published in something that would find its way into etymology citations. Whereas Cromulent is not an obvious word at all, and if it was used before the known citation it would more likely have a meaning related to the Cromwell family name, and so would not even be the same word, mere a homograph. The chances of the same actual word Cromulent having been in use prior to the television episode are vanishingly tiny.
They don't have the power to regulate it? Ha, that's a laugh. The 4th Amendment says that homelands security / TSA doesn't have the power to search and seize without a warrant, but they do it about a million times a day at airports. The airlines themselves could do these searches of passengers getting on airplanes, but its just plain illegal for gov't agents of the TSA to do it. But... they want to, so they do.
Next...