Hacker News Reader

Comment by BikiniPrince | Hacker News Reader

People had claimed their own email address had been used to post a message. The messages themselves were repetitive and clearly had generated names. Someone ran the entire thing through and reduced the bulk messages down to a handful. I believe there were some attempts to add filler words, but for the most part someone just put together spam bots.

View on HN

This absolutely happened. My parents, who have never heard nor cared about NN, had both their emails used by bots posting anti-NN comments. It was blatantly obvious to anyone who didn't have a stake in killing NN.

Happened to my wife. All the messages were obviously fake as they would say the exact same thing with a word here or there changed.

While I remember it being a big deal in tech news I don't recall it gaining a lot of traction in the establishment press.

My mother, who is dead, somehow rose from the grave and posted in support of repealing NN. That there will be no criminal consequences makes me very, very angry.

I look forward to the GPT-3 Assisted astroturfing campaigns in the future, only a matter of time

Hopefully by then we have some sort of anonymous “voting” technology so that each individual can have a vote on all public issues. It’s a pain to hold a referendum now, but if we could answer in 2min on our phones and know that our vote was secure, reliable, and 100% anonymous, we could reshape bureaucracy in an instant.

What I don't get is why this is so important. Someone spammed a web form but... this isn't a vote. This is a chance to provide information, which spam by definition does not contain.

If they wanted to make legal or technical points, it doesn't even matter who they are, the points are true (or not) no matter who said them.

So I just don't see what the big deal is here, because someone spammed meaningless comments into a comment form and it's not like they really took any of our opinions into account when making the ruling to begin with.

The Chair of the FTC used the number of comments against Net Neutrality as "proof" that people did not want Net Neutrality. He then refused to investigate the obvious forgeries.

Then he released this cringefest: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg

HOLY CRAP that's insane. Wow, we can still participate in the pop culture of the day that the pop culture czars want us to keep doing? Sweet!

If I can still keep doing all these cool things, why the need for repealing the Obama-era regulations (his words) in the first place?

also starring a pizzagate promoter, which seems a whole lot darker now than it was at the time: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fcc-chai...

Ouch. It's disturbing to see a politically nominated official, who is in his position presumably because of world-class leadership and communication ability, be SO OUT OF TOUCH that he doesn't recognize that what he is doing appears as satire.

Elections matter.

Appears? This guy was constantly making jokes and memes and he did so to appeal to the internet trolls that were his base. Right leaning millennials loved this guy; you must not have seen his back and forth with John Oliver over his Reece’s cup. For context https://www.chron.com/national/article/net-neutrality-repeal...

FCC, but yes. Another demonstration of how election choices have consequences.

The thing is, I don't for one minute believe that they would've made a different decision if the comments were different. This is just a legally-mandated hoop they jump through before doing what they want to do.

For the record, I support the goal of NN, I just am too cynical to believe that these comments ever mattered.

They matter because the inevitable lawsuits can/will point to the multitude in support of NN and demand the FCC explain why they decided against keeping it. They’re not just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through; they actually have to consider and weigh them all. A reason of “it’s ‘Obama era’ regulations that we don’t need” isn’t enough. “It’s bad for economic growth” would require them to explain how.

Obviously, one that just says “** you Ajit” or whatever doesn’t need to be considered, but ones voicing concerns or similar have to be.

Even if you say that, that just means it's the contents of the comments that matter--not who sent them. So the wrong thing is faked under that analysis.

I agree that Ajit made the wrong decision, I just facepalm when I see people raising this as an argument as to why when there are so many better arguments than whether someone spammed an insecure comment box.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com