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.

20 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Finally I'm heard! by Arzaboa · · Score: 2

    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

    1. Re: Finally I'm heard! by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It does indicate maybe that duplicate comments (templates) might not be given the same weighting as unique comments by those who make decisions. As such, spending 10 seconds to fill out an online petition may make someone feel good about doing something, but spending time to actually write something down will count a whole lot more.

    2. Re: Finally I'm heard! by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      However I think that just signing a form letter does not mean as much to lawmakers as if you wrote the letter yourself. It's the difference between someone who is tepid on the subject versus someone who really cares about it. When lawmakers care about being re-elected based on their actions, why won't worry much about tepid voters who signed a petition.

    3. Re: Finally I'm heard! by jd · · Score: 2

      It's an academic study, so the method is published. Examine it and write a letter to the journal editor in rebuttal if you think the method is fraudulent. People do and bad science is removed.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re: Finally I'm heard! by careysub · · Score: 2

      ... but spending time to actually write something down will count a whole lot more.

      Clearly not in this case.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    5. Re: Finally I'm heard! by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Strange though, that practically everyone who felt strongly enough to put it in their own words was on one side. So employees of Telcos, did your employer give you a template letter and ask you to send it, or did they send it on your behalf without asking?

  2. ...feels wrong... by ole_timer · · Score: 2

    on no issue, including net neutrality, is it believable that 99% were in favor...sounds wrong.

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
    1. Re:...feels wrong... by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What consumer would consider net neutrality to be bad? There is literally no reason to want to get rid of it if you are a consumer. The only people for it are the ones that want to charge more.

    2. Re:...feels wrong... by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't mean 99% of all people were in favor of a certain side of an issue, just that 99% of the people who left a comment with the FCC felt about the issue. I don't think there were many citizens against net neutrality who were concerned that the repeal of net neutrality was not going to occur.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:...feels wrong... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      the belief that internet access would be cheaper if ISP's didn't have the regulation to "bog them down". Not all of them were ignorant of technology either.

      However, they were all hopelessly naive.

  3. In Fairness.... by Luthair · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Form letters have long been a popular method for political causes. Though I personally believe there were a significant number of fake submissions too.

    1. Re:In Fairness.... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      A popular method, true. But is it an effective method?

    2. Re:In Fairness.... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      And yet a good indicator of if you truly care about something is if you put the effort to voice your own opinion or just do the FCC equivalent of re-tweeting.

  4. This is surprising? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Copypasta by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Funny

    So 'Copypasta' is a cromulent word now?

  6. Public Comments are not... by bobbied · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Public Comments are not... by ole_timer · · Score: 2

      Actually most public comments on proposed rule making are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The FCC does not have to solicit public comment if they propose to end a regulation. Thus any comment does not count in any case. It was a a waste of breath to think it did.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
  7. That's not going to happen. by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. rates are set by the local gov... by ole_timer · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  9. Re:Copypasta by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    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.