The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments

from the turning-a-big-blind-eye dept

As we recently noted, more than 40% of the 2.5 million comments filed with the FCC on net neutrality are entirely fake. The comments, which oppose net neutrality, have been posted using a bot that’s pulling the names used from a hacked database of some kind. When the people that own the actual names behind these comments have been contacted by the media, many have stated they didn’t make the comments, and/or have no idea what net neutrality even is.

In an ideal world, the FCC would easily parse out these obviously fraudulent, duplicate comments and shore up the abuse of its API. But because these comments support the current FCC’s belief that meaningful net neutrality protections are somehow an assault on “American freedom,” the FCC appears poised to completely disregard the fact that a malicious actor is manipulating the FCC’s systems. The FCC isn’t candidly admitting this, but FCC boss Ajit Pai’s non-statements and statements alike so far indicate he’s inclined to include the obviously fraudulent comments:

“The FCC didn?t respond to repeated requests to specifically say whether it would filter out the astroturfed comments. Speaking to reporters after announcing a step toward rolling back existing net neutrality protections, FCC Chair Ajit Pai admitted ?a tension between having an open process where it?s easy to comment and preventing questionable comments from being filed.? ?Generally speaking, this agency has erred on the side of openness,? he said.”

When pushed, FCC officials have said they’ll purge comments made under obviously phony names, but isn’t willing to comment further on the obvious blind eye to manipulation of the comment system:

“Pai said the agency wouldn?t consider comments with obviously fake names, like Wonder Woman and Joseph Stalin, but declined to go further. Reached for comment after Pai?s statement, an FCC official declined to comment specifically on astroturfed comments. “You heard his answer on erring on the side of inclusion,” the official said.

And again, the FCC is turning a blind eye to this fraudulent behavior because actual humans overwhelmingly oppose what Pai and friends are up to. Recent analysis of the comments made so far to the FCC indicate the vast, vast majority of consumers — across all political ideologies — don’t want the agency gutting meaningful oversight of the already uncompetitive broadband sector. That could be problematic later this year, when Pai faces inevitable lawsuits over his rush to kill the protections despite no corresponding market necessity, and the broad public support for the rules.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
68 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

I swear, if I had the resources I would start an ISP in a bunch of red states and anytime anyone tried to access Foxnews.com, NRA.org or anything like that, I would have it redirect to a page that says “SCREW YOU, THIS IS WHAT THE WEB LOOKS LIKE WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY” and then send them to picture of same-sex minority couples getting married just to finish off blowing their minds.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Your visual acuity should be evaluated by a medical professional … that is you are actually having difficulty reading text, they can provide options on how to best deal with your problem(s). Glasses, contacts or laser may help or you could just increase the font size, most modern browsers allow this, just hit ctrl+

Jason says:

Regrettably, I missed the narrow window between the system getting overwhelmed and their pause for reflection (or whatever) so I didn’t get to submit anything yet. Is there a way to submit comments in the mail? Maybe a physical submission—stamp, signature and everything—would reinforce the “I’m a real human being!” side of the argument?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Already flagged, troll. Stop commenting on a site that you claim is out to get you. We will gladly ignore you for the rest of your life, if you simply stop visiting the site. You have mental problems and suffer from a victim complex. Get actual help or stop complaining about how the world is doing its best to make your life harder, when you are the idiot going the wrong way.

peter says:

How naive of you

What made you think that having ‘open’ comments and the chance for the ‘pubic to have their say’ would make the slightest difference to the result? It is there simply so they can swat away any criticism of their decision with a statement of how ‘open’ and ‘responsive to public opinion’ the proceedings were.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: How naive of you

Yup.
See this played out on a daily basis at local levels. they have their town hall where speakers are heavily controlled and limited by content and time. Not sure why anyone even bothers with it other than to get on the news. The politicians have already made their deci$ion$ and look down upon any who speak against their plans.

William Braunfeld (profile) says:

Re: How naive of you

To be fair, people were saying the same of Wheeler, until… y’know, the activism worked.
And as was said in a previous TD article, while we may not be able to change Pai’s mind or the FCC’s current lumbering course, these comments are important to prove that the majority of Americans support Net Neutrality when this is brought in front of a court where Pai has to argue for why he’s changing the rules again.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: How naive of you

As I understand it, Wheeler was considered suspect at first because of his past history, and worries that he’d focus more on serving former employers over the public. As time passed his actions did away with most of those concerns as he demonstrated that he did actually want to serve the public(even if I feel he didn’t go far enough at times).

Pai on the other hand has made it very clear with his current actions exactly who he’s interested in serving, and it most certainly isn’t the general public.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: How naive of you

Normally I am a little biased against older people in charge of anything to do with technology, but this is mostly because of dealing with them on a daily basis when they go on and on about how things were so much better before computers and the internet and how difficult remembering their one single password is.
In some cases it is an advantage, like with Tom Wheeler who is 69 years old and doesn’t have a future in the private sector to consider. This is what made him change; he wanted a legacy so that people would remember him as a good guy and not the guy he used to be which was a bought bastard that would say anything for money.
It is also why Pai is going to keep screwing us over… he doesn’t care about the public or even the country. All he can see is the cushy extremely well-paid private sector job that awaits him, whether he is fired in disgrace or goes on to when the time comes and he just quits. There is no punishment awaiting him or banishment from that future no matter how much he screws up his current job, as long as he keeps doing what his corporate “sponsors” want.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 How naive of you

Normally I am a little biased against older people in charge of anything to do with technology, but this is mostly because of dealing with them on a daily basis when they go on and on about how things were so much better before computers and the internet and how difficult remembering their one single password is.”

The problem with that attitude is that you end up supporting the younger luddites, while ignoring the people who invented the very technology you’re using. To use names off the top of my head – Tim Berners-Lee is 61. Vint Cerf is 73. Ted Cruz is 46. By your standard, you’d rather have Cruz in charge than the guys who invented the web and TCP/IP. No thanks.

There are older people who are clueless about technology. There are others who know more than you do. If you use age as the only defining factor, it will lead you into serious trouble.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 How naive of you

You are absolutely right in calling me out on this.
The people you mention are among many others that I look up to, who has contributed and been a great part in tech innovation.
I guess that I cannot really accurately describe a certain part of the population that I am against running tech regulations… maybe because that is stereotyping which is never accurate. I hate the stereotyping of anyone so I will gladly admit that I fell for it myself and was stupid for doing so.

The problem is not, and have never, been any particular generation. It is the money, party-line politics, and ignorance that poison everything. There will always be ignorance, but the first two, money and party-line politics, creates a lot more ignorance and while we have so much of those, we can never gain a strong foothold. At best we can go back and forth depending on the people in power, at worst regulations will be made so they cannot be changed.
I just hope we can make enough noise to make NN too hot to touch for a little while.

Anonymous Coward says:

Pai doesn’t care in the least! as far as he’s concerned, the only comments he’s interested in are those from the ISPs and media companies, all of which back what he’s doing as it will be to their advantage, while screwing the American people! on top of which, of course, is that those same ‘interested companies’ just happen to be the ones i strongly suspect are ‘encouraging’ Pai (with pieces of 8, to coin a phrase!) to take this particular road!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

well its not like we didn’t vote or support any of this.

If you spend your time building a machine that can be used to blow you up, you have little to bitch about when someone makes it go “pop” in your face.

It’s funny that people understand why it is dangerous for back-doors to exist in computing but support the “social” backdoor that industry uses to corrupt their elected officials.

You guys are clearly not the sharpest tools in the shed!

William Braunfeld (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“If you spend your time building a machine that can be used to blow you up, you have little to bitch about when someone makes it go ‘pop’ in your face.”

…how in the world does THIS logic follow? Do I also have little to bitch about if I get punched in the face because, hey, it’s my fault for having a face?
You don’t even qualify that it’s a machine that -only- can be used to blow you up. Try detonating some warheads on a military base and then telling them “your fault for making warheads that could explode on your base,” see how well that goes for ya.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You don’t even qualify that it’s a machine that -only- can be used to blow you up. Try detonating some warheads on a military base and then telling them "your fault for making warheads that could explode on your base," see how well that goes for ya.

No kidding; it’s a dumb analogy even by his dumb-ass standards. I own a pressure cooker and a gas heater; if one of them were to blow up, I would be pretty upset about that. I own a car, too, which is more than capable of maiming or killing me in a variety of nasty ways, but if it does it’s because it’s not functioning as intended. If my car explodes, is it my fault for being stupid enough to drive a car? Is it the manufacturer’s fault for being stupid enough to build a car? Or is it not the concept of the car that was the problem, but some kind of implementation detail?

If only there were some way to make sure that auto manufacturers followed some kind of safety standards. Perhaps a system whereby there were a list of such standards that they were required to comply with, under penalty of law. And some kind of body that were tasked with assuring compliance, and able to impose fines on manufacturers that did not comply, or ban them from selling cars that did not meet required safety standards.

But nah, that’d never work.

Anonymous Coward says:

Gee Whiz, I wonder who might be behind the comments? Perhaps the FCC itself? If the FCC is hell-bent on scrapping neutrality of the net and at the same time under the microscope about the matter it seems like common sense that they’re manufacturing these comments to let themselves off the hook. I would even go so far as to say it is painfully obvious that they’re behind it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Pai said the agency wouldn’t consider comments with obviously fake names, like Wonder Woman and Joseph Stalin

According to online databases of questionable accuracy, there are anywhere between 0 and 20 people in the US with the name Joseph Stalin. Furthermore, there is one extremely famous (infamous?) person with that name who lived outside the US, suggesting that said name is not actually fake.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re:

According to online databases of questionable accuracy, there are anywhere between 0 and 20 people in the US with the name Joseph Stalin. Furthermore, there is one extremely famous (infamous?) person with that name who lived outside the US, suggesting that said name is not actually fake.

Uh, did you just point out that this is the name of an extremely infamous historical figure, and is shared by less than 0.000006% of the US population, and argue that these facts are evidence in favor of the premise that whoever posted that comment was actually named Joseph Stalin?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Assumptions

Karl, aren’t you assuming that Pai did not orchestrate the fake astroturfing campaign? What makes you reach that assumption? I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it.

That’s not happening. There are enough problems in the world without making up bullshit conspiracy theories. As much as we disagree with Pai, there’s no way that he has anything to do with faking comments. That’s not even within the realm of possibility.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Assumptions

"I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it."

I doubt he’s very concerned about it, but there’s zero reason to believe Pai had anything to do with it. It’s a stupidly hamfisted approach that everyone can see right through, and whatever you think of him he’s nowhere near that dumb.

You’re making a wild conspiracy claim here so you’ll need to actually provide some of those reasons and some evidence to back them up.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

I saw a tweet and we might have a source for the fake submissions.

https://twitter.com/bennjordan/status/867160916646920193

Loving this new @XFINITY feature where @comcast files anti-net neutrality comments to the FCC using your name and last service address.

Below is an image of the comment credited to the person who posted the tweet, who submitted no such comment.
It has the same BS letter we’ve seen flooding the site.

Perhaps its time to investigate corporations gaming the system to line their own pockets at the detriment of citizens. I wonder if the people contacted earlier who said they submitted no comments or knew nothing about net neutrality ever used Comcast. And a bungled roll out of a astroturf bot would explain the “DDOS” attack from misconfigured bots using commercial cloud services.

Its bad enough we have to pretend our leaders aren’t being outright bought, but for corporations to invent support for consumer screwing policies by stuffing the public ballot box with their bullshit using citizen names should be criminal.

Corporations aren’t people, and their best interests should take a back seat to the public good. Of course this might mean ending corporate handouts of citizens tax money for programs that never do what they are supposed to, and reminding them of what an actual free market looks like.

Daryl says:

What's New?

The FCC never takes into consideration public comments. Ever. A particular commissioner might cherry pick one or two that support their positions, but there has never been a proceeding that has been significantly swayed by public comments. They’re even less likely to consider them in the future given the “quality” of the comments received in this cycle, from bots on the anti-neutrality side to eloquent manifests such as “fuck trump” on the pro-neutrality side.

We get the government we deserve. Scroll through some of the comments, and tell me what you think we deserve.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »