99.7 Percent of Unique FCC Comments Favored Net Neutrality, Independent Analysis Finds (vice.com) 137
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.
Finally I'm heard! (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, as long as an actual individual, a citizen, z unique citizen tried to make their voice heard and were actively purposefully ignored and lied about, well, 100% of an entirely corrupt government. A government who sold out hundreds of millions of citizens to favour, what three individual, three corporate entities and fuck everyone else, WOW, corruption is as corruption does.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
... but spending time to actually write something down will count a whole lot more.
Clearly not in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Many people used templated [sic] letters from various organizations, possibly from both sides. It means that the remaining 21m COULD be legit but could be fake
And don't you see that there is a problem with the people you are talking about? These people comments shouldn't be counted anyway. If they needed to use template letters from organizations, it meant that they don't care enough for the issue or they don't completely understand what Net Neutral is. As a result, why should they be voting for when they have no idea what it is? Better let those who understand the issue/impact of the issue (either support or against) and really want to make their voices heard be
Re: Finally I'm heard! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Different big money interests rallied to make net neutrality the law*, despite the internet being built and running for decades without it.
* law, executive order...what's the difference between 'friends'.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there was a 10-15 years of hyper-commercialized internet, then someone decided NN 'had to be' or the sky would fall. Then before NN was implemented it was repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
And throttling problems were seen, and were becoming more prevalent. It is not as if everything was super keen. Net neutrality was introduced to address a real and growing problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings the discussion back to it's start. The big money pro NN corporations. Like Netflix etc that paid for NN executive orders.
All to avoid Netflix having to pay for rackspace at the ISPs, like everybody else that wants space on a rack they don't own.
NN has never been the practical 'law' on the ground.
In my experience, many of its proponents can't even define NN. Think it bans QoS, rather than putting it's legal definition into the hands of DC shysters (what could go wrong?).
Re: (Score:2)
Its rather difficult to repeal something before it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there was a 10-15 years of hyper-commercialized internet, then someone decided NN 'had to be' or the sky would fall. Then before NN was implemented it was repealed.
Sudden change could be a sky fall when vulnerable are found; especially in the digital age. When someone found a way to do something (in this case, it is throttling) and proved that it could make more money, then something has to be done or sky would fall. NN is an attempt to stop that even though it is not a complete solution at the time.
10-15 year for Internet world is very long time. Also, the exploitation wasn't exist back then, and so was streaming (Netflix launch it in 2007 [wikipedia.org]).
Then back to your pro corp
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not heard. I'm not listed in my state under my name or zip code. I pull the zip file with all the pdfs. If I'm in any of them, then my name is misspelled. Some of my neighbors are there.
I'm bummed. I gave it some thought instead of using a form letter campaign though I did mention the link of the one that got my attention. It was in favor of neutrality so I'm not accusing them of leaving out anti-neutrality posts. Maybe tl;dr? Still, my ego is dashed.
...feels wrong... (Score:3)
Re:...feels wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Quite literally, not just consumers, it is a free market protection as well. The companies as a whole support it.
it is only the ISPs that are against it because they have monopoly control over it and they are also the media companies so they try and prevent too much about it hitting the air waves so the public doesn't really think or know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's after removing duplicates, so if there was an anti-NN campaign with 100,000 signatories, it would still count as a single vote against.
800,000+ raw comments yeilded 646,041 unique ones, filtering out 154,000 duplicates. If all the dups were pro-NN, the numbers wouldn't change. If they were all anti-NN, the anti-NN percentage would be 19%.
My wild-ass guess? There were about 10% anti-NN messages, mostly people clicking "OK" on a site. Ditto pro-NN folks doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
it would still count as a single vote against.
This is a misconception. This was not a vote. This was a public comment system. It doesn't matter how many yays and nays there are. The system was intended, and is still intended, to get input from the public, not make the decision. Ten million people all saying the same pro-NN thing isn't ten million votes for NN, it is one piece of information to take into consideration. Saying it ten million times doesn't make it righter or wronger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've met several people who supported the repeal and all of them for the same reason; 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. It's for this reason I also suspect the 99% figure.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What consumer would consider net neutrality to be bad?
Any consumer who understood that "zero rating" is a target of the pro-NN people and who was benefiting from an existing zero rating system. For example, I don't care if Flurble ISP throttles NetFlix because I don't subscribe to NetFlix, but I do make a lot of use of the Snorklewhack streaming audio service that is zero rated on Flurble's network. If NN means I have to pay more, then NN is bad, in my opinion.
It is rare to find someone who is pro-NN and who also understands that zero rating is not a violati
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
like you said, it's opinion-based: in my undestanding, zero-rating infringes NN
Whether NN is bad or good is an opinion. Whether zero-rating infringes NN or not no longer is. It is codified into the CA NN bill as infringing. It will now be the opinions of the court that matter.
Re: ...feels wrong... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What consumer would consider net neutrality to be bad?
Any consumer who understood that "zero rating" is a target of the pro-NN people and who was benefiting from an existing zero rating system.
The problem is, it's more nuanced than just "zero rating" is a violation of NN or not.
As an entire type of service, "zero rating" isn't always a violation of NN. However, that just means some "zero rating" is a violation and others are not.
Zero rating for an entire class of something, or available to all providers at no cost, or at the customers control without the third party provider needing to care are all perfectly find zero rating schemes that do not conflict with NN at all.
Examples:
All video from any
100%! And more! (Re:...feels wrong...) (Score:2)
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 [gawker.com]...
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
Re: (Score:2)
... who cared about it enough and who knew enough about it to actually write something themselves, rather than regurgitating a prewritten statement.
The surprise is not that 99% were in favor of it. The surprise is that there are 800,000 Americans who actually understand net neutrality enough to write something meaningful. I would have expected one fewer digits than that, and maybe two.
Re: (Score:2)
There were 22 million comments submitted. Of those the researcher cited by TFA accepted only 800K — 3.6% — as valid. Of these 800K, he found 99.7% to oppose the abolition.
We know neither the criteria he used to pick the 800K, nor how exactly he discerned the commenters' point from those he did pick... It is impossible for him to have read them all — so he must've used software to parse the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they didn't release a report that showed the methodology used to come up with their findings.
Re:...feels wrong... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the true figure were 90% or 80%, it is still pretty overwhelming.
It really grinds that it becomes such a challenge in our Information Age to separate truth from truthiness.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, those who could be bothered to state an opinion either way are already a self-selecting group. If this were a randomized poll then I would agree with you, but for self-selected data points they can often be highly skewed. Ie, those pro-net-neutrality felt they needed to spend proactively 10 seconds clicking on buttons on the web, whereas those anti-net-neutrality just needed to passively do nothing and let the status quo remain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
True but you can end up with a screwed sample set like this a number of ways. It is definitely true that the public was overwhelmingly onesided at the time and maybe even 90% one sided. Today it wouldn't be 90+% but only because the issue has been politicized to dupe the public.
Re: ...feels wrong... (Score:2)
You're assuming those against would comment. People are lazy and need motivation. There's no motivation when it comes to the default.
In Fairness.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A popular method, true. But is it an effective method?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
This is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That's not going to happen. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'd recommend starting with voting. Maybe write some letters. Why do people have to start at violent extremes, even if only rhetorically.
I think the DNC losing the 2016 is the original mistake here. They theoretically had the numbers to win, but couldn't motivate voters to come out. Too many people gave up when Bernie didn't make it through the primaries, and a handful of pinheads voted for Trump because they couldn't stand the idea of Hillary being president. I mean I agree to a point in the sense tha
Re: (Score:2)
Someone voting for Trump because they didn't like Hillary was a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, off a cliff, then lighting it on fire.
I'm not denying that people didn't do this, but it doesn't seem all the rational. Sometimes I hate our system, but I'm not one to think that blowing it up and starting over is an improvement.
But you're probably right. At least I hope so. And people are more motivated during this mid-term than usual. I guess depending on how this turns out, we'll see if ther
Re: (Score:2)
I let myself in, because this is AMERICA. (Fuck yea)
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that you'd say it's FECKLESS to NOT try to assassinate our dictator-in-chief.
It's interesting that you are completely unaware that it is possible to oppose someone politically without killing them.
We've got 3 equal branches of government. You guys are in charge of all of them. Congress can easily reign in the vast majority of the Trump shitshow. They don't, because you do not want them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Recent video prove otherwise. Assault isn't the same as battery, but it's still assault.
Maxine Waters and Eric Holder, among others, are on video calling for confrontations.
Ted Cruz and Sarah Sanders get harassed by screaming yelling mobs, right out out of restaurants.
Antifa always gets downright violent when they show up.
Who shot Senator Scalise again?
And you're about to get a whole lot worse.
But then, these aren't classic liberals, this is the new breed of Progressives/Leftists.
Comments aren't binding (Re:This is surprising?) (Score:1)
Actually, no, we didn't. There never was a referendum. There were informal polls [morningconsult.com], but that's it.
The FCC comments aren't binding — and for a good reason: they are open exactly to the kind of abuse you are complaining about. Non-citizen participation (and foreigners [wikipedia.org] openly campaigning [time.com]), multiple participation, simple ballot-stuffing...
According to TFA, only 3.6% of the comments were "genuine", in the cited researcher's opinion... This would confirm
Ooh! Copypasta! (Score:2)
yum!
Copypasta (Score:5, Funny)
So 'Copypasta' is a cromulent word now?
Re: (Score:2)
Copypasta isn't as old as enbiggen, but it might be older than cromulent.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. "Cromulent" is from 1994. "Copypasta" might go as far back as 2006....
Re: (Score:3)
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 d
Public Comments are not... (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC does not have to solicit public comment if they propose to end a regulation.
Making stuff up are we?
"If an agency decides to amend or revoke a rule, it must use the notice and comment process to make the change." [federalregister.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> Nobody at the FCC is counting them, nor should they. This isn't some official opinion poll being conducted here.
The fuck? Democracy 101: Public institutions are obligated to act as the people wish.
One's organ (Score:2)
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.
rates are set by the local gov... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
net neutrality had nothing to do with what an isp charges you,
Since the point of ending net neutrality is to charge consumers more, this is a lie.
it said isp's could not charge netflix more for using up all the bandwidth
This is lie number 2. Netflix's ISPs have peering agreements with your ISP. Those agreements can include financial compensation if Netflix actually "used up all the bandwith".
The reason to end net neutrality was so that your ISP could get paid via peering agreements, and get paid again by charging you.
rates charged you are set by the local government who signs an exclusive contract with the local isp
This would be yet another lie. Local governments set up monopolies for cable TV service. ISPs are not cable TV service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could first try to explain why I should follow you off the rails when you try to distract from your lies?
Re: (Score:2)
what did internet access cost when it was de-regulated in 1996?
Mine cost $15/mo.
Also, what the hell are you talking about with "de-regulated in 1996"? Which specific act do you think "de-regulated" ISPs?
2006?
Around $30/mo, IIRC.
Today?
$50/mo
was that due to regulation or de-regulation?
Neither. It's due to the natural monopoly that is created when one utility has already installed coverage of an area. I'd be paying a lot less without that.
It Looks Like... (Score:2)
...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
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, Net Neutrality obviously leads to death camps. That's why Finland is the happiest country in the world [businessinsider.com], it's all the grinning skulls...
Do you even read the stuff you write?
Re: (Score:2)
The country is heading for totalitarianism of the communist variety. There's the current effort by gov't agency people such as Jim Comey formerly of the FBI and others to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States, while getting support from the leftists who don't want freedom and democracy and seem to be on the ascendancy. Seems we're tired of freedom, and the struggles it brings, and want cradle-to-grave easy street no matter if the price is slavery and for some a quick death. Few seem
Re: (Score:2)
When you look around and see a world you do not like, remember one thing: You made it.
We were the kids. You were the adults, making all the decisions. So that shit you see strewn all over the place? You and your generation put it there.
So either pick up a shovel and help us clean it up, or get the fuck out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
I did nothing to encourage bigger gov't, quite the opposite. I will however, do everything I can to oppose continuously at the ballot box, and physically when the time comes.
Re: (Score:2)
More than two sides? (Score:1)
Sure...but also against a gov't regulated internet (Score:2)
There's a lot of effort to add little meaningful information here. Politics, as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
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...