NY's AG Is Trying To Tie Major ISPs To Those Bogus Net Neutrality Comments
from the ill-communication dept
Last year you might recall that the New York AG’s office began investigating who was behind all of those bogus comments that flooded the FCC’s website during the net neutrality repeal. As we noted then, “somebody” paid a proxy organization to flood the FCC comment period with a myriad of fake comments. Some of those comments hijacked the real identities of real people (like myself). Others utilized a bot to post a myriad of fake support for Ajit Pai using a hacked database of some kind. Some of the most enthusiastic supporters of Ajit Pai’s policies were, interestingly enough, dead.
When the AG’s office reached out to the FCC for help getting to the bottom of who was behind the fake comments, the FCC completely stonewalled them, rejecting nine requests for data between June and November of last year. The FCC has subsequently stonewalled numerous FOIA requests regarding who used the necessary APIs to submit the fraudulent comments in bulk, resulting in a lawsuit by journalist Jason Prechtel. A court recently ruled in Prechtel’s favor, demanding the FCC release at least some data (in a month or two) that could identify the culprits.
Meanwhile, New York AG Barbara Underwood has expanded her investigation into the bogus comments, subpoenaing more than a dozen ISP-linked lobbying groups (and a few consumer advocacy firms) for additional data on the methodology used to submit the fake support for the FCC’s plan. Subpoena targets including groups like the telecom-industry funding lobbying vessel Broadband for America, which we’ve pretty consistently highlighted for some fairly sleazy and disingenuous behavior.
In her statement to me, Underwood stated that at this juncture they’ve found that 9.53 million of the 22 million net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC were fake:
“The FCC?s public comment process was corrupted by millions of fake comments?and our investigation found that as many at 9.53 million of those comments stole the identities of real people,? Underwood said in a statement.
?The law protects New Yorkers from deception and the misuse of their identities. And all Americans deserve a fair and transparent process for determining public policy that impacts their daily lives. My office will get to the bottom of what happened and hold accountable those responsible for using stolen identities to distort public opinion on net neutrality.”
It’s worth noting that Prechtel’s analysis and reporting so far has claimed that one of the key players in this whole shady affair may have been DC-based news website and lobbying and policy organization CQ Roll Call, which e-mailed the FCC last year looking for advice on how to submit millions of comments on behalf of an unnamed client. CQ Roll Call was indeed among those subpoenaed by the NY AG this week. Granted there’s a universe of fairly shady organizations that routinely help all manner of companies submit fake comments to try and sway government policy during official proceedings.
Again, it’s fairly obvious who benefited from trying to downplay the massive public opposition to the FCC’s plan by using cardboard cutouts. Getting a hold of all of the FCC API and other server-side data will certainly go a long way toward that end. The question really, as it has always been, is whether any of the proxy organizations involved were dumb enough to leave a paper trail leading to funders like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, or Charter.
Filed Under: ajit pai, barbara underwood, fake comments, fcc, net neutrality, ny attorney general
Comments on “NY's AG Is Trying To Tie Major ISPs To Those Bogus Net Neutrality Comments”
typo
“real identities of real people (like myself)”
s/myself/me
E
Re: typo
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/myself
3. Informal. (used in place of I or me, especially in compound subjects, objects, and complements):
My wife and myself fully agree. She wanted John and myself to take charge. The originators of the plan were my partner and myself.
Re: Re: typo
Illiterate. Claiming one word means another, especially when the first word doesn’t fit.
The literate English speaking world and I agree. Nobody uses “myself” in a sentence where removing the other parties would make it sound stupid. Example: “Myself fully agrees.”
Take yourself out of it and don’t be stupid. It helps to be literate. Or don’t write. Either or.
E
Re: Re: Re: typo
You know, I could go through your post line-by-line and point out all the ways in which it’s "incorrect" according to formal English grammar (hint: it starts with two sentence fragments, and then it ends with two sentence fragments).
I could go through your post history, point out the numerous times you’ve gotten angry at someone because you failed to understand plain English and blamed it on the speaker instead of on yourself, and suggest that perhaps you’re not the ideal candidate for lecturing other people on effective communication.
I could do either of those things.
But instead, what I’m going to do is point out that when you go around talking about how everybody is stupid and illiterate except for you, it does not make you look smart and literate.
Just look at the other guy who goes around calling everybody stupid and uneducated all the time. Does it make him look smarter? Is that the sort of behavior you want to emulate?
The purpose of language is effective communication.
You knew exactly what Karl meant.
You chose to nitpick about grammar instead of discussing the subject of the article.
Which one of you is contributing to effective communication, and which one of you is detracting from it?
"Take yourself out of it and don’t be stupid" is good advice. Maybe you should follow it.
Re: Re: Re: typo
"You know, I think sometimes we ought to realize the difficult and often dangerous work involved in tracking down violent criminals like myself, and I’d just like them to know that their fine work is at least appreciated by me."
A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
Again this obsession with a process that didn’t matter before the decision, and even less now!
Here’s more bullet points (repeated from long prior):
Even if all you assert about FCC’s process is true and they’re all totally lying, it STILL has ZERO consequence for the decision. Comments were NEVER a factor.
** It’s all only corporate rivalry, yet the NPCs think they have a champion. — Techdirt has a "sponsor" that shapes its views…
Re: Fraud always matters
Whether the FCC was going to pay attention might be irrelevant, but we’re talking about online fraud. Identity theft matters.
Re: Re: Fraud always matters
“Identity theft matters”
How about you convince the American Government it does? Right now there is very little “identity protection” happening either by way of written law or law enforcement activity.
Re: Re: Re: Fraud always matters
“How about you convince the American Government it does?”
I’m sure they are well aware of its financial potential.
Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
Just because the entire public comments thing is bullshit does not mean that the fraudulent comments do not matter and to argue whether it is “fake” or not seems a bit silly – no?
Net neutrality has been a “thing” since the 90’s … which if you recall predates the Obama administration, but don’t let that stop your silly attempts – do continue to make yourself look stupid as I find it entertaining.
Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
Wow, blue. Taking over for Dickface Bennett now? Did you remember to put on his kneepads so they don’t wear out over time?
Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
[Citation needed]
Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
“Techdirt always omits that the prior “net neutrality” was bought by Google / Facebook corruptly influencing the Obama administration to disadvantage ISPs.”
Are you sure that marijuana is legal where you live?
If not marijuana, would like to know what the hell you’re smoking…
Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
"Techdirt always omits that the prior "net neutrality" was bought by Google / Facebook corruptly influencing the Obama administration to disadvantage ISPs."
Please provide source material and evidence for the emphasized assertion. On what do you base this conclusion? If this is information that is being regularly omitted, then we would like to know. It would be in your best interest to educate the rest of us as to this apparent fact.
Please understand that I can’t just take your word for it – I don’t know you, I don’t know your credentials or what you know. So I would like some sources, please.
I look forward to your enlightening and well-thought out response.
Re: Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
I do know him and his credentials and no he didn’t invent email the fucking liar. You can take anything he says as complete and utter bullshit unless independently verified. He has gone so insane that he is stalking Mike.
Re: Re: Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
Oh, I’m fully aware this guy is making claims based on nothing.
The point is to call the bluff.
Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
Re: Re: A process that doesn't matter can't actually be fake.
you just gave him a woody
Re: A process that doesn't Troll
It won’t matter if we don’t try to hold them accountable, jackass. Too early in the morning for your lies.
Re: Re:
“Even if all you assert about FCC’s process is true and they’re all totally lying, it STILL has ZERO consequence for the decision. Comments were NEVER a factor.”
The fact that you believe that a vote was rigged at the counting phase does not mean you should ignore the fact that the ballots were also being stuffed.
“Techdirt always omits that the prior “net neutrality” was bought by Google / Facebook corruptly influencing the Obama administration to disadvantage ISPs.”
People often omit lies when discussing documented fact.
More pointless Flag waving
What is the AG going to do exactly?
Fine them? That is a pointless fucking activity. In all of government the “fine” is the most worthless con being pulled upon the moron public. Fines are only for one purpose, government revenue generation. It solves no other purpose than the enrichment of government coffers. And fines are often well under priced to avoid creating a disincentive.
Fines mean nothing if they are too high for people to pay then and several morons in the world would actually start bitching about those fines if businesses went out of business losing all those folks those jobs.
Fear is the best, you can get nearly anybody to agree to anything with the proper application of fear.
Re: More pointless Flag waving
I find your lack of imagination disturbing.
Re: More pointless Flag waving
It’s not (just) about revenue stream; it’s also about creating data points and swaying public opinion. If the NY AG gets to the bottom of this and figures out who was involved, it will then be incumbent upon the FCC to respond with action, or they will have utterly failed to do their duty and people can demand that Pai step down.
Kind of like how Edward Snowden’s leaks didn’t change much, but were used as added leverage for political purposes further down the line.
Re: Re: More pointless Flag waving
Except for a significant and rapid rise in the use of encryption by private companies and individuals.
At some point, my proposal to sterilize people who BELIEIVE internet reviews or comments will gain traction. /#sarcasm
The above is hyperbole which reflects my belief in the futility of protecting humanity from its own stupidity.
Most of the time when people want to protect the public this way, the argument is predicated on the notion that those they wish to protect are too dumb to protect themselves, which requires an insult, like when people say Trump won because those who voted for him are uneducated idiots. Even if they are, telling them that is not likely to win them over.
Re: Re:
…What are you talking about? And how is this relevant to Net Neutrality?
Re: Re: Re:
You are too ignorant to understand this stuff, you need to go find a book about Dick and Jane, when you grow up we can discuss these things with you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, okay, so you’re too dumb to be able to try and explain to anyone, and fall back on insulting the intelligence of those who question unclear non-sequiturs to the current conversation. Got it.
I wish you well in finding your social bubbles, where nobody will ever challenge your worldview or force you think critically about what you believe. May you find success in walling yourself off from the rest of the world, and speaking into an echo chamber full of nothing but you, and your thoughts.
We can do without your input.
Of course, if you would like to engage in actual discussion, and try to explain what Mr. Smith is saying and what relevance it has to the current conversation, I’d be willing to listen and try. My hopes are extremely low, however, given your particularly juvenile response.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I did explain, I explained you simply need more life experience and knowledge to understand why and how what he said is relevant. TD is insufficient to provide you this insight in any way that will facility a proper understanding, in my opinion.
Is that response suitably adult for you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, yes, you like to demean others to inflate your own sense of self-worth.
Have a cookie.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hey, I like cookies!
I have more than enough ego to the degree that I feel no need to inflate it further. Couple that with a strong will and you will find that I am not push over and often times when people begin to figure out that I am right their first line of defense is to make such claims as you make.
If your intellect is so shallow that you are not able to ignore the meaningless parts of a conversation then life is going to be even more difficult for you and life is already hard, even harder when you are ignorant.
It is a fool that is insulted by something not intended to insult them, but it is an even greater fool that is insulted by something definitely intended to insult them, for they have played into the hands of their enemies!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
If your ego needs no self-aggrandization, why do you continue to brag about how superior you are? If you are secure in your intelligence, why must you tell us this?
If you are so intelligent, why is it so difficult to edify the less-intelligent? Is it beyond you to try and debate, discuss, converse, and learn? Does the means to do so escape you? Did you fail your communications courses because you were "too intelligent" to talk to the rest?
Side note for everyone else: I’d recommend flagging every single reply by either him or me in this chain. Y’all can save your time, this whole thing is gonna be pointless.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Why are these comments being flagged?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Because you’re a dumbass, Chip!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Inability to answer a question implies lack of an answer.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
lol, works for me, as we both what your failed solutions keep failing and being pressed forward.
How many time do you have fail before you change your strategy? I really does not matter if I have a good or bad solution at this point. You are so fucking bent on your suicidal strategy that by the time you are done, it will be to late.
Wait… it is already TOO late. The ISP’s won, and you will never beat them. NEVER!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Except I never offered a solution, but do not let that interrupt your bit.
Re: Re:
People cannot resist becoming the very agents of their own destruction.
As someone who helps a lot of “unfortunate” people it see it all day long. I know what it takes to make a great society but no one wants to put in the work because it is too hard.
The work that is required is “responsibility” especially the personal kind and this is something people just will willingly and totally submit themselves to some form of slavery to escape. And the entire time they will totally tell you that they are against slavery, heck they will even turn around and complain about the shackles they just placed on themselves of their own accord.
A founding father once said it best.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”
~Thomas Jefferson
A lesson no Democrat has ever learned, because once they learn it they stop being Democrats, and today considered to be an Anarchist… by more than just democrats now.
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting take on your personal philosophy.
How is this relevant to the AG investigation of the fake comments in the public participation process of the Net Neutrality repeal?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My question is how are you NOT able to make the connection and like you said in the other post you don’t need my input…
You are feeling too butt hurt over it. I will not stand in the way of your ignorance.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, yes, you like to demean others to give yourself a sense of superiority, possibly to fill in voids in your overall self-worth. Since I’m not your psychologist, it’s hard to say for certain what the root cause is.
I’ll take your response to mean you don’t know what the relevance is either, and just wanted to soapbox your personal philosophy.
If you would like to disabuse me and others reading of this notion, feel free to show your hand and edify all of us uneducated masses regarding your clearly evident genius – we could clearly use the instruction.
Otherwise we might as well just start tuning you out, since it’s just going to be a bunch of hot air.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You are mistaken, I demean no one to provide myself any sense of superiority. As it goes, anyone with a sufficient ego will not be needing to engage with those they consider beneath them for it serves no purpose to do so. They will not likely be able to understand what you say in any meaningful way or be a friendly recipient of such ideas. The rude language is merely a means to an end that people consistently fail to understand.
I fully understand the relevance of his and my posts, you simply lack the desire, insight, or knowledge to comprehend why.
In short why it all matters is the basic premise of who is best suited to protect your own interests. A politician miles away who does not even know your name, an agency that also does not know your name, or yourself? If yourself is the best possible defender of your own interests then why would you shuffle yourself loose of this responsibility and then turn it over to a politician that subsequently turned it over to an “un-elected” agency “un-beholden to voters” that for all appearances created a public comment process that they already admit themselves does not have to even be considered as they make whatever choice they prefer most and are likely enrich them, rather than you. I can tell you this, it sure does make for a very good “carrot on a stick” to keep you distracted from the real issues as hand.
I know many ways to keep people unnecessarily busy, and your politicians and government knows even more ways than I because they have the time to sit around and pay people with your tax dollars to figure this out. The deck is more than sufficiently stacked against you to such a degree that you don’t even know or understand the half of it… as they say.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Your continuing ego-boosting self-congratulatory verbiage seems, by your own admission, to be designed to make people not listen to you. To me, this is idiotic. If you did not want to be listened to, why would you even speak?
Aside from that, you appear to be saying (I may be mistaken, given I’m having to torture the words to get actual meaning) that we shouldn’t trust the politicians to protect us from the ISPs, so we shouldn’t ask for Net Neutrality.
If that’s the case, please advise – how should we protect ourselves from the abuses of the ISPs? You clearly have the answer, based on your estimation of your own intelligence and resourcefulness, so what’s the silver bullet?
Please note: "You are too stupid to be able to understand the solution" will be automatically translated into "I don’t actually have an answer and I’m just talking out of my ass to increase my own sense of superiority."
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Eh. they are clearly one of the SovCits.
I bet their magical plan is something to the effect of saying the government should not exist and the best way is to head right up to the CEO of the ISP and dumbfound them with an argument so amazing that they will humbly submit and give not only free internet for life, but chairmanship of the board.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Hello Mr. Moron, not a SovCits.
but you are clearly a communist.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Your continuing ego-boosting self-congratulatory verbiage seems, by your own admission, to be designed to make people not listen to you.”
The first lesson of wise people is to look past that.
“If that’s the case, please advise – how should we protect ourselves from the abuses of the ISPs? You clearly have the answer, based on your estimation of your own intelligence and resourcefulness, so what’s the silver bullet?”
To many to list here, but you can start by getting rid of the regulations that protect the ISP’s and their monopolies. Stupid bullshit like NN is a carrot on a stick to trick fools into a pointless chase while they plunder your ass from behind.
If you destroy the monopolies and lower the barrier to entry then you will find that these ISP must now compete the same way clothing MFG’s must compete. But as long as you let Comcast own the highway between you and where you work, you must always pay the dues they demand or you lose your ability to survive. And no, if you think you can control them through an agency or politician, let me just tell you… I am the ISP, I am just going to buy every representative you send me with the money I force you to pay me with the help of the police you pay and the politicians you pay.
Isn’t it so nice I get to make you pay for me fucking you over?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I’m afraid we disagree on a particular point: the first lesson of the wise is to effectively communicate so that people will listen. In my opinion, your deliberate obfuscation and default to insult makes you a fool.
I am apparently tolerant of fools, since I continue to try to converse with you.
As regards your recommendations to fix the problem:
Please advise how we should bust the monopolies. Please advise how the barrier to entry should be lowered. What is the mechanism for this to occur, since we should not act through politicians or regulation? What is the actual WAY that these tasks should be accomplished?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“What is the mechanism for this to occur, since we should not act through politicians or regulation?”
When you are a fucking moron you cannot be educated. I never said or implied this, making you a fucking moron, or a troll.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Eat your own words: And no, if you think you can control them through an agency or politician, let me just tell you… I am the ISP, I am just going to buy every representative you send me with the money I force you to pay me with the help of the police you pay and the politicians you pay.
Since we can’t control them through an agency or a politician what, is the actual fucking method by which we should enact change?
What are you actually proposing we do? Do you even fucking have an answer, or are you, as you appear to be, a self-aggrandizing blowhard with no useful input? Are you the moron you are making yourself out to be?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
” And no, if you think you can control them through an agency or politician, let me just tell you… I am the ISP, I am just going to buy every representative you send me with the money I force you to pay me with the help of the police you pay and the politicians you pay.”
Is NOT NOT NOT NOT the fucking same as
“What is the mechanism for this to occur, since we should not act through politicians or regulation?”
Telling you to stop using politicians as the control mechanism is not the same as saying get rid of them or not to use them to destroy that mechanism, and is a sign of a fucking moron, troll/agenda drive idiot to believe it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Answer the goddamn question, you evasive idiot.
What is the mechanism by which we should enact your solution?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
already answered fucking question moron.
get rid of the fucking regulations that grant the monopolies, yes you will need the help of politicians and yes you are going to need a few “different” regulations instead, along with the support of morons just like you.
but when they are like you, expect to face a bunch of ignorant resistance.
Lets just say… you are a living example of why America is run by a bunch of morons and why it is failing.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
You know, if you were less of a dick about it, you could have gotten to that point a lot sooner and with a lot less fuss.
Getting rid of regulatory capture is indeed a good idea. Getting rid of the anti-competitive bad regulation that prevents municipal ISPs from forming and creates barriers to entries by new ISPs is indeed a good idea.
I don’t see how also pursuing Net Neutrality regulation in addition to these is problem, though. Strong Net Neutrality regulations that are properly enforced would, on top of a competitive market, ensure that ISPs are barred from additional anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior. Nothing you’ve said in any of this has done anything to suggest that Net Neutrality should not be pursued in addition to the off-loading regulatory capture and bad regulation.
On the flip-side, you’re absolutely fucking terrible at actually communicating, and you say things that imply things you later walk back on and try to play like you didn’t mean that.
“And no, if you think you can control them through an agency or politician, let me just tell you… I am the ISP, I am just going to buy every representative you send me with the money I force you to pay me with the help of the police you pay and the politicians you pay.”
A clear reading of this indicates “oh, the politicans won’t do anything for you, so don’t through them” but oh no, oh fucking no, no no no, that’s not what you meant. Say what you mean, then. Learn how to talk and write and communicate, for the love of everyone’s sanity.
What you meant was, apparently, “we’ve got to use the politicians because fucking how else will we be able to actually do anything but I hate them.” Unless, of course, your failure to properly communicate and your heavy reliance on immediately insulting the intelligence of anyone who attempts to read anything you say has again obfuscated your intended message. If that’s the case, man, you can try to blame everyone else but you, but the problem here is that you can’t communicate clearly.
In the end, it seems, we agree on certain points. It’s just too bad you couldn’t fucking say it clearly the first time around.
Have a wonderful day, you rank, insulting asshole. I’ll hope you one day manage to turn yourself around and start acting like a decent human being, but I won’t expect any improvement any time son.
AC out.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
“You know, if you were less of a dick about it, you could have gotten to that point a lot sooner and with a lot less fuss.”
There is no proof of that. Additionally, it serves as another one of my proofs that people will intentionally ignore truth just because they do not like the way it sounded. I have to constantly prove this. Is it fun? Sometimes. Is it productive? Sometimes.
“Getting rid of regulatory capture is indeed a good idea.”
NOT what I said, I said get rid of the rules that grant monopolies. They really are different things. If you can get rid of those, then even a regulatory captured agency is weak and depending on circumstance be overlooked.
“to suggest that Net Neutrality should not be pursued in addition to the off-loading regulatory capture and bad regulation.”
I said WASTE OF TIME! If you want to pursue NN, then do it after you fry the bigger fish. NN is a carrot on a stick to keep ignorant people busy. It is a classic example of Political “smoke and mirrors” that Democrats so often play. News Flash… the Democrats and Republicans both are on ISP payrolls and this issue is TOO SMALL to register in the debates right now. WASTE OF TIME! And it is counter productive because instead of removing power from a corrupt agency it gives it power. Ajit may be a lying dick but he is the same kind of dick that Wheeler is, paid to do the bidding of his masters!
“In the end, it seems, we agree on certain points. It’s just too bad you couldn’t fucking say it clearly the first time around.”
No, you are wrong, we pretty much disagree on everything.
“Have a wonderful day, you rank, insulting asshole.”
You too!
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
What about the regulation of natural monopolies, that is industries where infrastructure costs are such that the first to serve a market area has such an advantage that competitors will not enter the market.
Also note that the limited competition for fixed line ISP service in some areas is an accident of history, Cable TV and phones used to use different technologies, and so did not compete with each other, now they use the same technology, and and actual phone lines are becoming a thing of the past in areas served by cable.
Just how many roads, water pipes, electric cables, wire or fiber service will you accept running over, under and past your property, just so there is competition to provide you with a more expensive service. All that infrastructure has to be paid for, and whoever you sign up with will charge you to cover the idle infrastructure they have built to allow them to compete with other providers of the same service.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
ISP’s being a natural monopoly is a farce created to justify ridiculous schemes to regulate them.
roads are public property for a reason, if we let private businesses own them, what do we get? toll roads… look how that is going down.
Natural Monopolies are a farce, if you can justify taking taxes from the rich to give to the poor you can certainly justify taking poles and cables from businesses that are on public property.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
These aren’t the answers you’re looking for…
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ahh the gold fringe appears. Onward boat captain!
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
There is one problem with rugged individualism, in that individuals cannot deal with organized groups who are working against the individual. The answer to that problem is for individuals to form groups, which are known as political parties, or campaigning organizations.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“There is one problem with rugged individualism, in that individuals cannot deal with organized groups who are working against the individual.”
This is not true, this is why the founders installed a “Constitutional Republic” because it recognized that individual as the most valuable building block of the nation. An individual can and have successfully defeated organized groups.
“The answer to that problem is for individuals to form groups,”
Agree, here but disagree with the rest.
“which are known as political parties, or campaigning organizations.”
It is okay form groups, but they need to transient. Andy formation of power become solidified and causes the people to become lazy.
“Eternal Vigilance” is the price and we are refusing to pay that price when we consolidate power into political parties or campaign organizations. And when we refuse to pay that price we lose our liberty.
Once the work at hand is done, the group needs to be disbanded only to reform in a different visage according to the needs of the issue at hand. If left to stand it becomes rank and corrupt with the obsessions that formed it!
the Democrat and Republican parties are a clear example of this. The parties are in control… not the Politicians or the People.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
All companies are organized groups, and are far from transient. Do you expect everybody to monitor there activities all the time, so that they can get organized in time to stop them fouling the environment?
Who runs regular checks on the quality of food, to ensure what is being sold is fit for consumption, and who makes sure all outlets are regularly inspected? Do you expect that everybody learns enough chemistry to be able to to decide what chemicals are safe near foods, and which are dangerous. Who keeps the records that allow slow to develop problems to be detected and dealt with.
Even the most primitive of societies handed some responsibility off to a few individuals. Priests, shamans and the like were societies store of history, and rarely needed knowledge, and a major part of their job was to pass that knowledge onto their successors.
Modern society is too complex, and has significant specialized knowledge requirements for individual responsibility to work well. Even primitive societies knowledge and history they wished preserved, but which required a long time to memorize, and which was the major function of shamans etc. who also had the responsibility of passing their knowledge onto their successors.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“All companies are organized groups,”
I though we are just discussing in the context of politics. But yea we can include these into the fold.
“Do you expect everybody to monitor there activities all the time, so that they can get organized in time to stop them fouling the environment?”
We don’t have a choice, that is what responsibility means. Once we discover someone destroying the environment then we need to stop playing these games and instead of fining them, we go straight for the “Person owning the company, damaging the environment” goes right to the electric chair for an ever so juicy public execution…. AFTER they are proven guilty of course. Fines are for fools and greedy governments looking for a payday instead of performing the will of the people.
“Who keeps the records that allow slow to develop problems to be detected and dealt with.”
I did not say that record keepers are not allowed, I am saying that you should not create law writing agencies. It is a total short circuit of the “Rule of the Consenting”. Instead is is the “Ruling of Slaves”.
“Modern society is too complex,”
But not complex enough to let a small group of people run it instead of the many citizens? Do you understand what you just said? Are people to stupid to rule themselves but smart enough to vote for their rulers? Are they only good enough to be slaves, but also good enough to vote for their slave masters? Is life so complex that they cannot be allowed to navigate that complexity with out government law and enforcement?
I don’t know how you GET to that conclusion without a massive intellectual failure… there are so many ways to call that out as BS. Do you think America is a Democracy while simultaneously thinking that it is too complex for the people to have a say?
I think we are done here, we superficially agree on a couple of things, but you hold too many contradictions for me to work through.
Re: Re: Re:
You clearly have never worked with unfortunate people if you believe they do not work hard or take any responsibility.
Also – what does any of your random screed have anything to do with ISP’s potentially defrauding the FCC’s process?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah yes, another of those “nothing bad happening to me is ever my fault” folks.
Let’s just put it this way. If someone gave you the choice of freedom but no protection, or protection with becoming a servant… you would choose to become a servant.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Been guzzling the paint chips again I see…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Chip eats them all before I get any.
You probably know Chip since you probably eat the same shit he does.
Re: Re: Re:
“The work that is required is “responsibility” especially the personal kind “
Another personal responsibility fool who thinks everyone is capable of becoming rich in this land of opportunity – LOL.
Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did – Hahahaha
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did.
I came from starvation and destitution to the upper middle class without government assistance or family members that helped in any significant way.
I overcame and everyone calls me a moron, especially the poor group I left behind… they hate me the most because I refuse to be called a victim or rely upon the bogus foundations they keep trying to lay down.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sure you did.
Troll physics is phun
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No we make fun of you because you act like an entitled cuntblast. Your real problem is that your huge ego is covering a massive inferiority complex and you don’t merit annoyance much less hatred from us. But go on and do what you do. It’s fun to watch you shit yourself inside out trying to make someone, anyone believe you and your pathetic middle school arguements matter.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I came from starvation and destitution to the upper middle class without government assistance or family members that helped in any significant way.”
I doubt you’re telling the truth, not least because people in that group don’t tend to refer to themselves as “upper middle class”. But, my experience is that the people who have actually done such things that boast about not getting any help were in reality completely dependent on what others provided them. They’re just either too proud to admit it, or too dumb to realise how much assistance they were really given
“I overcame and everyone calls me a moron”
Is it because you did all that and then choose to spend your time and wealth trolling people anonymously on random websites, or because they know that this is all you have succeeded at in reality?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yeah – it’s amazing .. and they did it all themselves, no one ever helped at all.
Like their mother didn’t wipe their infant ass and feed the little cretins and those elementary school teachers did not give you the basics, certainly those doctors did not provide any vaccinations and/or medications that prevented an early death.
Yup, they do it all themselves and do not need anyone else. Their company does not need customers either – it’s a miracle!
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’m always reminded of this comical display from Craig T. Nelson:
“I’ve been on foodstamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.”
The logical disconnect required to believe this is astounding.
Yet, many people seem to base their political viewpoint on such distortions – the kind who voted for a man who inherited more money than most people will ever see, who has a string of bankrupt businesses behind him and a reputation for screwing small contractors because he was an “honest, self-made man” and understood the needs of “real Americans”.
Show me a man who demands worship because he built everything with his own two hands, and I’ll show you the people who provided all the materials and tools free of charge. The people who achieved real success don’t tend to feel the need to boast about it, because they know the results are there to be seen by those who count.
Re: Re:
What do you claim the public wants to be protected from? Net Neutrality violations? How is that considered to be “protecting the public”?
Re: Re:
Do not respond to this guy. These are trolls whose sole purpose is pollute the comments section and get everyone arguing about something that has nothing to do with the article.
His comment has TrollFactory written all over it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I’m just flagging every single reply in here. My own included. Hide the whole thing, community, let people click through the veil if they are curious.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That might not be a bad idea actually.
Re: Re: Re:
Which is more valuable? For people, even trolls, to be able to speak no matter how ignorant or stupid they are, or to silence everything you don’t agree with causing them to come off the rails and visit upon other physical violence since you have just made it clear that diplomacy can only result in failure since you clearly will not listen?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just silencing you is good enough for me.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I find the silliness to be entertaining.
REALLY?
they found 1 group?? so far??
Neither smart nor computer and network literate..
They could of bounced this threw Russia and we would have another reason to be upset..
Another was found near russia, and it was a short story, about how they get paid for doing this service, ANYWHERE they get paid from..
The problem....
The problem the AG is going to run into is EVERYBODY is using these fake PR firms now to try to control the narrative. And nobody wants to give them up.
Well since there aren’t any non-phony anti-NN arguments, it stands to reason that the comments would be similar.