Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the like-coughing-up-a-hairball dept.

"We write to request information that will help both us and the public better understand how the Federal Communications Commission managed the record in its recent net neutrality proceeding," begins a letter sent today by all the Democratic representatives on the House Energy and Commerce committee.

The missive notes that the comment period was "notoriously replete with fake comments" and argues that as a result it "raises novel questions about how an agency can properly handle and interpret the public's feedback to make sound policy decisions."

The seven-page memo [PDF] contains no less than 16 pointed questions over how the FCC handled abuse of its comment system, while noting that its subsequent decision to approve the controversial repeal of the nation's net neutrality rules provided "scant detail" on that aspect.

The letter also makes it plain that the lawmakers believe that the legitimacy of the FCC's decision is in doubt. "While we may not support the outcome of this proceeding, we hope you agree with us that transparency in the process is crucial," it reads. "In order to restore public confidence in the integrity of the process and give the American people a better understanding of how the FCC analyzed the comments filed in this proceeding, we request that you provide us information on how the agency reviewed the public comments."

[...] While the letter is unlikely to provide a smoking gun, it does keep up political pressure on the FCC over how it handled the public comment process.

[...] So far, the FCC has demonstrated no intention of investigating what went wrong or how it can be mitigated in future. In fact, in an increasingly partisan atmosphere, even mentioning that the comment process was entirely undermined has become a political statement.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:00PM (6 children)

    by Hyperturtle (2824) on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:00PM (#638250)

    In a million of the fake comments, they were sourced from the wise denizens of pornhub.com.

    This is all quite reasonable in the grand scheme of things, until some irritating internet expert points out to the FCC that despite Pornhub being an established fine goods provider of speedy e-commerce payload delivery--they do not actually have a domain that allows for non-employees to send emails from it. That is -- there might be an MX entry for Pornhub corporate offices to send emails, but there are not a million unique user IDs with email coming from the Pornhub domain.

    They might have millions and millions of viewers, and millions more page hits, millenial, gen-x, and people very much not booming with babies anymore -- but none of them have email addresses there.

    The million or so comments from Pornhub... speaking out *against* net neutrality (which almost sounds like it was not only fraudulent and false, but a great troll as well) are thus not eligible because not only is it not likely, it isn't possible. They dont have that many user ids, that many email addresses, and dont even have the infrastructure to handle such a thing even if they started offering free porn to your phone via signing up with your own email address on their domain.

    They didn't then and they don't now -- of the many services and positions (uh) they may demonstrate to have, email accounts for users are not among them. No one that works there sent them, either, as they stated as much (no I don't have the citation handy... feel free to search for a NSFW pornhub link though, I can't quite do that at the moment...)

    If it was even remotely realistic that the domain could have done this, then the argument would be murky, if perhaps memorable due to the domain chosen and their existing political leanings that seem to differ. But it isn't murky; the only way it would be possible to send so many messages and claim to be from them is via spam and the forging of their headers. And you can do this even in Outlook 2007 and prior by adding a "from" field option to the email composition window. You can claim to be from anywhere, and the FCC forms didn't validate any of it. (MS Office is a clunky way to do it, though, so I imagine someone just pirated a spam tool and pressed the "fire the cannon" button.)

    The emails probably came from randomdomain.xyz or something, because you don't need a hack a domain to put up a facade to some simple web form with little to no validation checks that is run by government workers who are doing the least amount of effort possible to filter out noise (with no specific reason from me being implied as to why--lazy, ignorance, politics--could be all three or more).

    The FCC stands to lose credibility, regardless of their political leanings, when this type of discovery is made across numerous examples. People expect them to be filled with experts that have an idea of how this all works; there are standards and best practices and even paid for services that can be followed to do simple checks and cut down the volume of noise significantly--there are even captchas that can at least slow down the problem if not stop it.

    It's a game being played by people with a profit motive, and they are motivated to win. The referees responsible looking the other way, assuming they are even there. People that play nice will lose when the experts are proven to not understand how to cheat, or act willfully ignorant, regardless of who is in charge. It's one of those things where an invidiual comment from a person like me literally can't measure up against the volume that a million pornhub users can collectively put out... even though we know it's all fake anyway!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:17PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:17PM (#638276)

    You still haven't addressed the point, why would comment spam be a concern? Just summarize and judge it on its own merits. If strawman has a point, then it has a point.
    If you can just ignore it because of anonymity, why have a public commentary at all? Why not only have well-known president appointed talking heads give comments? Surely they are even more "trusted" than anonymous commenters to spam their views.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:58PM (4 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:58PM (#638295)

      It's only partly about the logical arguments; it's also partially a popularity contest/poll of public opinion. But of course when you ballot-stuff that means you can't get useful numbers out of it. 20 people with the same opinion is 20 votes; one guy submitting the same opinion 20 times should not be 20 votes.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:14PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:14PM (#638303)

        20 same opinions with the exact same points is still a single point, how does it become stronger? I think you are conflating votes with RFCs.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:04PM

          by sjames (2882) on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:04PM (#638338) Journal

          Because 20 people hold that view, not just one. Duh!

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:12PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:12PM (#638342)

          Maybe it's not a literal vote, but I'd still like to see them have the balls to decide against a hypothetical proposition where 99% of the feedback they get is on one side of it.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:17PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:17PM (#638416)

            Why not? The FCC is not an elected body, it is kind of the point of having appointed positions. If they are doing against public interests, have Congress or the Court Justices reign them in.