from the say-it-often-enough-and-people-will-tend-to-believe-you dept.
I used natural language processing techniques to analyze net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC from April-October 2017, and the results were disturbing.
NY Attorney General Schneiderman estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans' identities were stolen and used in spam campaigns that support repealing net neutrality. My research found at least 1.3 million fake pro-repeal comments, with suspicions about many more. In fact, the sum of fake pro-repeal comments in the proceeding may number in the millions. In this post, I will point out one particularly egregious spambot submission, make the case that there are likely many more pro-repeal spambots yet to be confirmed, and estimate the public position on net neutrality in the "organic" public submissions.
The author's key findings:
- One pro-repeal spam campaign used mail-merge to disguise 1.3 million comments as unique grassroots submissions.
- There were likely multiple other campaigns aimed at injecting what may total several million pro-repeal comments into the system.
- It's highly likely that more than 99% of the truly unique comments³ were in favor of keeping net neutrality.
Related Stories
[Ed note: Some important context for this submission appears in this c|net article: Internet sites to protest Trump Admin's net neutrality plan
A group of activists and websites including Imgur, Mozilla, Pinterest, Reddit, GitHub, Etsy, BitTorrent and Pornhub are planning a campaign Tuesday to draw attention to an upcoming FCC vote that could radically reshape the way the internet works.
[...] Tuesday's campaign is the latest effort by activists to dissuade the FCC from repealing Obama-era rules that effectively classified internet service providers as utilities. The classification, known as Title II, forced companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to treat all internet traffic equally. Last week, protesters marched outside Verizon stores around the US.
Earlier, a handful of tech trailblazers -- including Vint Cerf, a founding figure of the internet Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple; and Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web -- posted an open letter on Tumblr criticizing the proposed repeal of net neutrality.
"The FCC's rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to abolish net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create," the letter said. "It should be stopped."
Imagine if all sites defaulted to, say, dial-up or ISDN speeds unless they paid extra for full-speed internet. The large, incumbent sites on the net could easily absorb such costs. Smaller, new, or niche sites (such as SoylentNews) could not afford to pay for faster access. If this is not what you want, then contact the FCC and/or your elected representatives and let your view be heard.]
takyon writes:
Ajit Pai jokes with Verizon exec about him being a "puppet" FCC chair
On Thursday night in Washington, DC, net neutrality advocates gathered outside the annual Federal Communications Commission Chairman's Dinner to protest Chairman Ajit Pai's impending rollback of net neutrality rules.
Inside the dinner (also known as the "telecom prom") at the Washington Hilton, Pai entertained the audience with jokes about him being a puppet installed by Verizon to lead the FCC.
Pai was a Verizon associate general counsel from 2001 to 2003, and next week he will lead an FCC vote to eliminate net neutrality rules—just as Verizon and other ISPs have asked him to.
At the dinner, Pai played a satirical video that showed him planning his ascension to the FCC chairmanship with a Verizon executive in 2003. The Verizon executive was apparently Kathleen Grillo, a senior VP and deputy general counsel in the company's public policy and government affairs division.
The speech was apparently not supposed to be public, but Gizmodo obtained footage of Pai's remarks and the skit. You can watch it here.
The vote is currently scheduled for Thursday, Dec. 14. The FCC and Federal Trade Commission announced that they will work together to punish ISPs that don't keep their promises (assuming they make any).
Previously: Washington DC Braces for Net Neutrality Protests Later This Month
FCC Plans December Vote to Kill Net Neutrality Rules
FCC Will Reveal Vote to Repeal Net Neutrality This Week
Comcast Hints at Plans for Paid Fast Lanes after Net Neutrality Repeal
More than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments were Likely Faked
The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled an April 25 vote to restore net neutrality rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed under former President Trump.
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the Internet remains fast, open, and fair," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said today. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open Internet."
[...]
In a filing with the FCC, Turner wrote that "ISPs have been incredibly bullish about the future of their businesses precisely because of the network investments they are making" and that the companies rarely, if ever, mention the impact of FCC regulation during calls with investors."We believe that the ISPs' own words to their shareholders, and to industry analysts through channels governed by the SEC, should be afforded significantly more weight than evidence-free tropes, vague threats, dubious aggregate capital expenditure tallies, or nonsensical math jargon foisted on the Commission this docket or elsewhere," Turner wrote.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:09AM (3 children)
lkasdnl;kasd ;asdc ;lasdjhnas;iljhcvdsa
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:14AM (2 children)
Parent is not een a real homeless
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
No. GP has been a real homeless, but now he has a home, is earning money, and is donating money to a homeless shelter.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:56AM
Grvhfbjfdv ufcjktf
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:14AM (47 children)
... a lot of people seem to think interference with the Internet is the proper role of government.
Fuck off.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:28AM (39 children)
And you seem to think that ISPs should be able to double and triple charge for the same bits, favor/censor what their customers can see or do on the Internet and spy on your internet traffic.
Fuck off.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:30AM (5 children)
There's no way you can deduce that from my comment.
Try again.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:37AM
I most certainly can. Your comment clearly implies just that.
That's all you get, troll. Find your dinner somewhere else.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:49AM (3 children)
Can and did.
The trick was running your post through a douchebag decoder ring.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:13PM (2 children)
It's made of straw!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
Maybe you should reread the descriptions of various internet argument types. You're looking for "ad hominem" not "strawman".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:59AM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:39AM (28 children)
Nope, no double-billing. My payment for my traffic to and from Soylent News and Soylent News' payment for their traffic to and from me is NOT "double-charging for the same bits", primarily because there is not yet a Omniunicorp Internet Service Company. Charging each Internet participant - client OR server - a fee for bandwidth used is the standard way of conducting business regarding moving data around via the Internet.
With "common carrier" status, ISPs effectively are dumb pipes. Else I'd expect to see a lot of AOL execs dragged off to prison for all the kiddie porn that must have touched their networks.
Do you own a cellphone? Do you pay taxes? Then you've got much more serious problems between your personal homing beacon and the NSA than with scare stories involving ISPs with effective government monopolies that you seem to want to more heavily embeded with government.
You pay for own Internet bill. Don't try to freeload off me by claiming Net Neutrality is good, when in fact it's only good for the traffic hog that doesn't want to pay the actual price for the service he's using.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:50AM (9 children)
That's not at all what I'm talking about. And I (and half the sane people on the 'net) have been over this time and time again. I'm not going to explain it to you again. You're either misinformed, a shill or just plain stupid to believe such lies.
Right. And the way the fucktards at the FCC are going to do away with all that is to reclassify iSPs out of common carrier status. That's what the entire discussion about net neutrality hinges on. You obviously have no clue what you're blathering on about.
Shill or moron. I still can't tell.
Those are other very important issues that need to be addressed. But they have nothing to do with the current discussion.
I don't freeload off anyone, asshole. I can pretty much guarantee that the ISP I use is not the ISP you use. And I don't use Netfucks or any of that other streaming garbage that the ISPs have been extorting in an effort to raise barriers to competition for their cable programming.
Yep, A shill and a moron. If you ever expect to get paid by those assholes, you really need to up your game. Your "arguments" are weak and easily refuted by these little things called "facts." You should try them some time.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:52AM (5 children)
Oooh, ooh, I know this game! "You're wrong and are a big doo-doo head."
What a productive discussion!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:57AM (2 children)
I see. You have no rational response, so you resort to argumentum ad idiotum.
Lovely.
Yes, you're wrong. No I won't post the *thousands* of links that explain exactly why you're wrong.
Educate yourself or stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
How does that old saw go again? Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:20AM (1 child)
I know a naked ASSertion when I see one.
If a plan involves adding MORE government to enforce MORE arbitrary rules at gunpoint, I'm almost always against it. A fancy name dressed up in scare tactics doesn't change that. Incidentally, without government force, the monopolisitc and abusive ISPs would be shunned and die as they would then need to rely on the quality of their services alone for survival.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:31AM
I did the research (including actually reading the the law and the regulations, as well as a wide variety of other information).
I won't do your research for you. Remain ignorant if you like. It's no skin off my nose. But it's sad.
Pick one of these [brainyquote.com] and kick yourself in the ass for being lazy.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:34PM (1 child)
Shut it neck snapper.
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:29PM
Oh, so we're going fourth grade now? Make me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:56AM
Facts don't pay. Not even as a journo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:32PM (1 child)
Note that those two are not mutually exclusive.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:29PM
At this point, shill implies moron *and* evil, or at the least morally-retarded.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:25PM (17 children)
Your payment to your ISP entitles you to whatever traffic you request or is requested from you. SN's payments to Linode entitles them to the same. Do please explain to me the logic behind your ISP thinking it should be allowed to charge SN as if it were SN's ISP instead of yours.
Strawman. Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with bandwidth consumed by users. It is entirely about ISPs charging third party content producers as if they were their customers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:10PM (2 children)
If SN was generating a massive imbalance of traffic never before seen that totally breaks the status quo oversubscription model (common in the electrical grid, municipal water systems, etc.), the default reaction would be to extract payment for the new and disruptive pattern from the disruptive source. This is especially the case where "no-charge peering agreements" are in place, and which some large ISPs have with other backbone providers. The breakage of such peering agreements is at the source of the imbalanced traffic (hence Netflix's backbone partners such as Cogent getting their peering agreements revoked due to breaking the balance of traffic from Netflix's new traffic spikes). This is why my claim is not a strawman, as you assert.
"Third party content producers" is just a talk-around phrase for "streaming video" sites. Streaming video sites want to keep a low price tag on their service and as such are keen to offload the actual costs of infrastructure to deliver the new paradigm of "constant stream of high bandwidth, low latency data for hours and hours" to anyone else they can.
Note that I am not trying to assert that the slimy, fraudster, monopolistic ISPs are the good guys in this case.
(Score: 5, Touché) by tibman on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:11PM (1 child)
Your argument doesn't make sense once you realize that the ISP subscribers all bought X$ mbit connections and they cannot exceed their paid limits. At no point can "streaming video" sites offload their costs onto the ISP. If an ISP oversold it's capacity then that is on the ISP, not the consumer or the third party content producer. The ISP is effectively charging customers for more bandwidth than they can actually deliver.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:02AM
I agree to a limited extent, in that the prolific "unlimited Internet" which are of course not unlimited are fraudulent. Tiered plans with burst and extra fees beyond the specifically-defined data limits are of course possible to do, and can be reasonably priced since the servers I'm paying for in a remote data center are doing exactly that right now.
The "third party content producer" is just obfuscation for "streaming video site", and the massive traffic imbalance that brings ALSO impacts no-fee peering agreements in addition to the problem with fraudulent ISP access plans you identified. The access costs for such streaming video sites would be/are much higher if they were paying for the data they actually used instead of shopping around for backbone providers with peering agreements they could have the backbone provider violate for a while which is why there was big news a couple years ago regarding Cogent's peering agreements being revoked by some ISPs - it was due to the violation of such peering agreements due to the massive traffic imbalance caused by your "third party content producers" aka streaming video.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:17PM (13 children)
Simple.
You, one of the people behind Soylentnews, voted for the people who are going to change the policy to allow this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:22AM (12 children)
Did he?
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:18AM (11 children)
Even if he voted for Gary Johnson, and not Trump, Gary Johnson has the same policy stance on net neutrality.
So, yes, TMB voted for the policies he now complains about.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:37AM (10 children)
You agreed with Hillary on every position she held then? Voting for a politician always means you're going to get fucked. You just get to pick which available way you'd prefer.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:41AM (3 children)
No, because there are degrees of being fucked.
You chose the most extreme version of being fucked.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:55AM (2 children)
No, that's what I usually do. Vote for the absolute worst candidate to bring about revolution quicker. This time I was hoping to throw some third-party chaos into the mix next election cycle. Didn't pan out but I don't bemoan my choice and I'd make the same one again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:06AM (1 child)
I disagree with Buzzard on this matter (less of the thing which caused the problem GOOD), but it's still funny/sad to see all the crabs in the pot clamping furiously at CraBuzzard to make sure he stays firmly within the confines of the pot.
There are no winners. Buzzard sees this. Why can't the rest of you? I think Buzzard's approach (what little I know of) is weaksauce, but then I can't expect EVERYone to decide to pare down all their title-able property and give the IRS the middle finger. You people think you're better than Buzzard? Step up and prove it! Stop voluntarily fueling the Beast!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:14AM
I do not have crabs, thank you very much. I shave regularly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:03PM (5 children)
Your glib response isn't actually relevant. There is a significant difference.
Reducing regulations was a central part of Trump's campaign. It's also a central part of Libertarian philosophy. I am sure that Hillary would have done things that I don't agree with, just as Obama did, but I supported their central campaign promises.
You voted for someone who made reducing regulations central to their campaign; repealing net neutrality is part of that. It's didn't come from left field: Pai has been opposing net neutrality for years.
So, do you support reducing regulations? Or merely support repealing the regulations that you don't benefit from?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:34PM (4 children)
A) You apparently didn't look further down and read why I vote the way I do.
B) You're trying to trip me up with a logical fallacy that lame? Even had I voted for Johnson because I thought he was "THE BEST CANDIDATE EVAR!!!1!1", I'd think anyone who believed him right in every instance was an absolute idiot. We disagree on many things. Trump and I disagree on a whole lot more. Hillary? She'd make the world a better place by taking up bullfighting as a retirement hobby, which is why I would have voted for her if I hadn't decided to go for a different flavor of chaos this time around.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @09:58PM (3 children)
Whatever your attempts at deflection, voters like you are the reason we are losing net neutrality.
Just because you have a ridiculous reason for the way you vote doesn't remove responsibility for the results of your vote.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 04 2017, @02:00AM (2 children)
Of course not. Like everyone else though, I prioritize. Net Neutrality was only one issue among many. That's what you don't seem to understand.
Even if I voted on the issues rather than strategically, there was no acceptable candidate who so much as paid lip service to Net Neutrality. There was Cheeto Jesus, Cruella Deville, and Stoner Boy. Were I voting on the issues, I still would have voted Stoner Boy. Hell, I would have voted Cheeto Jesus before I sold out every other principle I believe in for the sake of Net Neutrality.
Now here's the thing that's really not sinking in: It doesn't matter who I voted for. I'm an American. They're my legitimate government. I have not just a right but an absolute obligation to call bullshit on anything I disagree with. Especially if I voted for the current batch of pricks in office.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday December 04 2017, @02:37AM (1 child)
And it's my right to call you a hypocrite for complaining about the people you voted for implementing one of their main campaign promises.
That's what you seek to obfuscate, if not outright deny: it wasn't a matter of picking a candidate who came with a little shit on the side: this was a central campaign promise. All your bullshit excuses can't change the fact that you are now getting exactly what you voted for.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 04 2017, @11:08AM
Central campaign promise? Are you shitting me? I make my living on the Internet and it wasn't a central issue to me. How fucked up is your head that Net Neutrality was more important than all the real world issues?
As for calling me a hypocrite, well if your priority is flinging your own shit shit like a monkey rather than understanding why people do the things they do, go right ahead. Mind you, that attitude is a large part of why Cheeto Jesus is in office today but you keep right on flinging, little trooper.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:24PM (3 children)
Are we all assuming that AT&T and Comcast paid for this fraudulent comment campaign?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:26PM
That would be the way to bet.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:14PM
I don't make that assumption, although it is plausible.
If/when I have facts about that, I'll draw some conclusions.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:52AM
Au contraire. They are mine. I paid for them. [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:54PM (3 children)
Fire all the referees, umpires, and judges, and play sports without them! They're interfering officials, always spoiling the games, stopping innovation. It's like they think that's their proper role.
Teams ought to be able to sabotage each other's transportation, poison the other's food, slip in performance destroying drugs, tamper with the air in the visiting team's locker room, or come up with even more innovative ways to assure victory. Cheerleaders could play a bigger role. Have their wardrobes "malfunction" when the visiting team has just passed the ball, distract the receivers. Let the fans lean in and catch those balls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Maier [wikipedia.org] Stick out a knee and trip that opponent running along the sideline, stop him from scoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal_Alosi [wikipedia.org] Heck, why be subtle, who needs deniability, just break their legs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonya_Harding#Attack_on_Nancy_Kerrigan_and_aftermath [wikipedia.org] If only we didn't have rules and enforcement, sports would be so much more fun!
Free the markets, yeah!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:52PM (2 children)
When your vaunted umpires are the one kneecapping opponents of their preferred team, ripping off cheerleaders' clothing, and paying fans to rush out on the field at opportunistic times, perhaps you should re-examine the value you place on the umpires.
If you cannot control your own self, what makes you think you can appoint another person like you to do a better job?
If men were angels, they wouldn't need governing, and yet what are governors but men?
Who watches the watchers?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:36PM (1 child)
Lawl, whatever chicken little, you're cray cray in a big way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:13AM
Your attempt at gaslighting brings me sadness at its dimness and flaccidity. Though I have such high regard for humans, I suppose I can't expect much more from a typical denizen of government-provided schooling. Fun fact: if there's a contradiction, there's a problem - even if that contradiction is part of a very deeply-held belief.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:30PM (2 children)
We think the proper role of government is to interfere with ISPs interfering with the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:18AM (1 child)
Granted the implication that most ISPs are government-enforced monopolies, which MUST end immediately, and that delegation of authority to investigate and punish fraud is valid since an individual person does have the authority to defend against fraud..
That being said, please explain how the federal government obtained the delegated power you claim it has, which is to impose conditions on how private entities conduct business among (apparently) willing customers. Your starting frame of reference should include the beginning of said government, which was at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:45PM
My ISP is headquartered in Illinois. I live in Wisconsin. That makes our business interstate commerce which is regulated under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the US Constitution which was drafted at said Philadelphia Convention in 1787.
It's a good thing said Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery because otherwise you'd be owned.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:26AM (41 children)
Perhaps someone with significant media reach provided a template for interested people to use, since the overwhelming majority of people seem to dislike writing letters these days.
It couldn't possibly be that the idea of paying extra for my Internet connection so that my extra fees go to my neighbor to keep the visible pricetag on his Netflix subscription low...
It couldn't possibly be that tying a technological wonder such as the Internet to a corrupt, criminal, bloated, inefficient, uncaring, and effectively mandatory bureaucracy called the United States federal government might be considered by many as a horrific idea...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:30AM (2 children)
Isn't that a lot like the last result of Saddam Hussein's election?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:51AM (1 child)
Think they canceled his Netflix subscription after they hung him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:54PM
Pictures get hung, people get hanged.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:34AM (1 child)
There have been numerous (aside from this guy's analysis) analyses which clearly show the use of spambots to send these messages. What's more many of these analyses actually contacted the purported posters of these automated comments and found out that most didn't even know what net neutrality was and didn't post any comments at all.
I'm not going to do the work for you. You can find them yourself in seconds with a quick search.
If you're unwilling to do so, you're either being deliberately obtuse, are a shill for the ISPs or just plain dumb.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by frojack on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:50AM
I would say that was probably true on BOTH sides.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:40AM (4 children)
Random samplings of the people who supposedly submitted anti-neutrality comments have been contacted and turned out to have never sent a comment. In some cases they didn't know what net neutrality was. So no, it's definitely a case of fake comments being fraudulently submitted,
(Score: -1, Troll) by frojack on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:49AM (3 children)
So you say.
Who did the calling? You?
How many were contacted.
Did anyone call those in favor and do similar checks? Was that you?
This wasn't a vote. There was nothing saying it was illegal to comment more than once on either side of the issue.
Don't waste your time trying to count angels dancing on the head of a pin.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:26AM
I counted 5, but it WAS a very small pin.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:17PM
You need to read more news. The NY AG is investigating this because he is of the opinion that it constitutes identity fraud in the state of NY.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday December 04 2017, @05:47PM
And if they had chosen to do that, there wouldn't be an issue.
The problem is that they chose to comment more than once *while impersonating other people*.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:48AM (16 children)
You're overpaying for your Internet connection so that established, monopolistic ISPs can have profit margins exceeding 90%. Also, data is data regardless of who your neighbor is using his Internet to communicate with, so it's not the business of the ISP and that's not why your Internet bill is high. Not to mention, ISPs have taken massive amounts of taxpayer money saying they would expand and/or upgrade their infrastructure and then failed to live up to their promises. But yeah, these ISPs are just angels who want to save you money somehow.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:56AM (15 children)
I wrote the GP (the one you replied to), and we're in near-universal agreement.
I want to see LESS government involvement in the Internet at all levels, and yes, this does include the removal of the government buttresses to support the crooked corporate ISPs.
You can't fix a problem caused by government (thuggish monopolistic ISPs) with more of the very same thing which caused the problem in the first place (government).
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:24AM (14 children)
You are apparently unaware that the Federal government has *zero* to do with granting local monopolies/duopolies for ISPs around the country, right?
That's done at the state and local levels. If you don't want thuggish ISPs, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Go bug your local and state representatives and ask *them* why ISPs to whom they gave sweetheart deals have consolidated (>90% of internet connections) down to a few big companies across the country, and are using that power to charge exorbitant fees, impose abusive TOS and thwart potential competitors to their media distribution divisions.
Given that this is a nationwide problem, it makes sense for the Federal government to rein in these greedy fucks, since the corrupt and greedy state and local governments that *you* put in office are feeding at the trough even more (in per capita terms) than the U.S. Congress.
Sadly, *you* voted in a bunch of greedy fucks in the federal government too. Now you're reaping what you've sown. It's *your* fault.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:58AM (2 children)
You're talking about the specific shade of blonde of the hair on the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Government is homogenous in nature. Government is FORCE. Force used in cases absent of fraud or others' initiation of force is no different in principle than a mugger or a slaver. I reject such premises for the operation of a society.
There's too much force in my Internet already. You advocating to cram more in is not helping.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:37AM (1 child)
Move to the sunny Somalia already! And then tell us how you like big fat black cock FORCED up your asshole. Not everybody's cup of tea...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:42AM
Your Stockholm syndrome is understandable, but not worthwhile as an argument.
I prefer to reason with criminals, and resort to force only if necessary; you, on the other hand, seem to worship force, so long as it is "home team" force. It may comfort you to know that it is almost certain that I will be murdered by agents of your beloved US government before I have the chance to die of natural causes.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:39PM (4 children)
Not on a large scale. But the US National Park Service does have that power in Yellowstone National Park. There's probably some other federal property where they have that degree of control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:47PM (1 child)
Even in the National Petrified Cell Tower Forest?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:57AM
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:32PM (1 child)
And how many *paying* (for Internet access, not to visit the National Park) customers are involved?
You're attempting (poorly) to distract from what's really going on. I'm not surprised.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:47AM
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:59AM (5 children)
The idea that it's the local deals that cause the problem is, IMHO, a mistake.
California does not allow such exclusive deals, yet, there is effectively a duopoly in residential wired Internet services in many cities. Thus, the largest state provides an example that suggests that there is something else in play.
We need to recognize that wired Internet services (at least the last mile) are a natural monopoly and regulate them accordingly.
Blame Michael Powell for the current situation.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:08AM (4 children)
So those franchises are approved at the state level then?
It's ludicrous to think that extant wireline providers just started trenching and pulling cable without any permits or approvals. Given that *someone* (whether it be local or state officials) needs to approve access to rights-of-way for wireline internet infrastructure, there's a state or municipal government involved.
Oh wait, I'm sorry. it's the U.S. Department of Internet Monopolies And Consumer Beatings [wikipedia.org] that decides which ISPs can operate in which municipalities all across the country, right? How could I have missed that?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:04AM (3 children)
*exclusive*
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:42AM (2 children)
You keep using that word.
I think it means what you think it means.
But I never used that word. And nothing I said even implied it.
So what's your point?
Not trying to be a jerk, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:32AM (1 child)
My point was that local municipalities can't create local telecom monopolies because they are not allowed to make *exclusive* deals. You went off on a tangent on at what level the franchise agreements were made.
However, when searching this I did come across a news item that shows that Comcast and (I think) Verizon did get franchises at the state level. I think that this is how it works in CA and the cost of any local municipality agreement must be actual cost incurred by the municipality.
I still don't think that the issue in California is monopolies created by franchise agreements. The issue is that the last mile is effectively a natural monopoly and that, until a former FCC chairman removed the regulations, incumbents were required to allow access to their last mile wiring to competitors. This is the situation in the UK, where most people have quite a choice of ISPs, because an ISP can access the last mile connections of the incumbent.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:09AM
All fair and reasonable points.
I wholeheartedly agree that the "last mile" is a natural monopoly (just like electricity distribution which, at least in my city, is not only a monopoly, but is required to deliver electricity generated by others. That creates an interesting dynamic, as delivery charges are ~3x the cost of the electricity) and should be treated as such.
As I've argued repeatedly here, the last mile should just provide links to any ISP that wishes to provide service, with those ISPs competing on features, price, service and reliability.
However (and regardless of how ISPs are vetted/approved to provide last mile services), this is exceedingly difficult to do in the current environment. And that's (which was my original point) why these sorts of arrangements should be implemented at the municipal level.
But given that incumbents are bent on maximizing rent-seeking and raising barriers to competition, and state/local governments in the US are generally quite corrupt, that's a difficult row to hoe.
As such, the stakes in the fate of net neutrality rules are quite high. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against us.
Because the truth is that we are the weak, and the ISPs are the tyranny of evil men. The FCC has, on occasion, tried to be the shepherd, but not no more. So we're gonna be as dead as fucking fried chicken. [youtube.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:57AM (6 children)
Because metering and charging traffic per node is an impossibility, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:01AM (5 children)
You and I both know that metering and charging a fee directly related for use is absolutely possible. It is also preferable to the current fraud model ("unlimited" Internet - no, wait, it's not really unlimited) or involving more government force in a situation where mere personal economic choice would remedy the situation. (Yes, this also necessitates removing the government-granted monopolies of current ISP corps.)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:56AM (3 children)
Mr Troll, I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but I wish they would step aside so I could drop a deuce in them. With all the shit you're spouting I'm guessing you're due for a refill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:12PM (2 children)
It saddens me that your best retort contains two sentences containing three references to bodily waste.
I'd love to test my argument against an intelligent mind to discover its flaws. I suppose I'll just have to wait for another mind to show up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)
Sorry. You're apparently too stupid for this discussion so poppy flakes is all you get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:22AM
Is that so? [wikipedia.org] Darn, I was so hoping I was the more intelligent of us. Thank you for clarifying the situation.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:26PM
You, I... and a good chunk of this world, Australia included, where "unlimited download" plans do nor exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:34AM (2 children)
So you have no idea what net neutrality is? Perhaps you shouldn't voice your opinions about it before you know what it is about... jesus
Net neutrality is exactly the thing that keeps you from paying for your neighbors use of the few sanctioned sites, whether they be failbook, go-ogle, netfucks or some other big fucker. Such criminal practice (except if you ask the current corrupt FCC) is called zero rating. It's where you fund these pre-selected winners and the internet will be turned to a total oligopoly (and then monopoly). And it's the exact opposite of net neutrality.
Always research first before forming opinions, PLEASE!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:15PM (1 child)
That's the CLAIM, and it is a claim shared by proponents of government.
Considering that it's a safer bet to assume that the name of every government bill-and-would-be-law states the exact opposite as the consequence after its passage, you'll pardon me if I believe that you are the one who has no idea what the result will actually be from a bill toting "Internet Neutrality".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:41PM
You are apparently at least semi-literate, so why don't you go ahead and actually read the law (in this case, the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended numerous times, as well as the regulations associated with Title II classification)?
I did. I believe that an informed citizenry is critical to the health of any free society. You appear to woefully uninformed. And making blanket statements about what the folks *you* elected may or may not do without any information or evidence makes you look like an idiot.
Or are you afraid that your fairyland hellhole version of reality will crumble if you learn some facts?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:29PM (3 children)
Strawman. That has nothing to do with Net Neutrality whatsoever. Net Neutrality tells ISPs that they can not charge anyone but their customers for the service they provide. Nothing else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:15PM (1 child)
That's a bit of a problem when a significant number of ISP customers are choosing behavior which breaks the longstanding oversubscription model (e.g a past ISP's 1.5Mbps T1 serving a customer base of 500 dialup users) in conjunction with the prolific "unlimited"-but-not-really-unlimited access model fraud. (It could be argued that oversubscription itself is a fraud, but it seems more of a logistical fact of life mirrored in your 240V electrical outlets and on the roads you drive over: all such resources are actually sparsely used, and 100% usage by 100% of the customers would instantly break the infrastructure.) Since "unlimited-no-not-unlimited" plans are a fraud anyhow, tiered plans with burst (such as the one I'm paying for my remote servers with) is likely the honest solution to take on the ISPs' end. There would exist honest ISPs if government force supporting the existing megacorp ISPs was removed.
There's also an issue when a remote site is generating a large imbalance of traffic across backbones which then breach no-charge peering agreements (agreements which do not charge for data transfer because the net traffic in/out is roughly the same). I've not kept up to date on the current abuses by Netflix (et al) shopping around for backbone providers with no-charge peering agreements they can abuse to dump their massively imbalanced traffic load on, but that's exactly what they were doing when this "Net Neutrality" became a popular buzzword a few years ago. That's fraud, and forcing ISPs at gunpoint to "only charge their customers" means that my Internet access bill for SSH, email, and web browsing goes up to support building the ISP infrastructure for my neighbors' constant streaming data habits.
I've paid for too many bridges to believe that a federal government action plan will merely be used to address a small, specific issue.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Monday December 04 2017, @06:06PM
Shouldn't that just be fixed by Netflix's ISP charging them for that traffic they're using? If hosting a streaming site costs you more, than have a special service package for streaming sites. If businesses are offering Netflix a deal they're losing money on, how is that anyone else's responsibility? Limit their speed or limit their bandwidth until they purchase an upgrade. No different than personal internet service -- if I want to stream movies all day long, I can't just buy any random $5/month internet plan, I'm gonna need more bandwidth than that.
Net Neutrality doesn't say they have to host Netflix for free; nor does it stipulate how they must negotiate peering agreements. It says they can't block me from accessing Netflix if I paid for that bandwidth. They can't say that Facebook is included but if you want to use diaspora* that's an extra $20/month for the expanded "full Internet" package. But they can still charge as much as they need to for the base connection. If their peering agreements are no longer equal, they can renegotiate those. Hell, they could cut the peering agreement entirely -- net neutrality doesn't say they have to serve everything that exists; it only says that the content they do serve can't be prioritized.
Besides, forcing them to renegotiate those peering agreements could be very, very good for the Internet. Because if Netflix has to pay extra for using so much upstream traffic, it encourages them (or the company serving them) to encourage more upstream traffic from the other side to equalize that gap -- ie, it creates an incentive for large corporations to encourage home servers and more distributed content delivery.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:24PM
Actually it's not quite that, Buzz. Net Neutrality restricts ISPs from preferring some packets (for whatever reasons) over others. Net Neutrality attempts to make ISP internet connections just "dumb pipes."
Which, at least IMHO, is as it should be. Without Net Neutrality, an ISP can, with impunity, demand protections payments (it'd be a real shame if your network traffic doesn't get to our customers) from SoylentNews, gab.ai, Alex Jones, motherless.com, etc.
What's more, without the requirement that all packets be treated equally, an ISP could just flat block sites they don't like.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:45AM (3 children)
People have been hacking write-in campaigns since the Pleistocene. It used to be they handed you a letter and a stamp and an envelope and told you to sign it and mail it. Half the people kept the stamp and the envelope, and tossed the letter.
Now it costs exactly nothing. So everybody will click a button to submit a pre-constructed text email, which is given exactly the weight it deserves when it floods in to an inbox somewhere.
If we NEVER get internet voting, it will be too soon. Anyone who thinks that would ever be trustworthy needs a bitchslap of monumental proportions.
The whole public comment thing was a farce from the day it originated. There's no reason to act all indignant when it goes bad. It was never intended to go well. It was to make you feel good, and shut up and go away.
The analysis in TFA is almost as trustworthy as the public comments:
One Mail Merge was detected on the bad side.
Likely others on the bad side.
Highly Likely none on the good side.
Really?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:02AM
[Pleistocene citation needed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:04AM
From TFA (a letter from the New York State Attorney General to the FCC) [medium.com]:
So the FCC is now obstructing justice as well as boning consumers. Well done, Mr. Pai!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:09AM
Oh, and what's more. from the other TFA [hackernoon.com]:
This seems pretty up front to me. Let's both go and attempt to reproduce the analysis, Frojack. What? Not interested? Most likely as it won't support your fairy-tale version of reality. Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:57AM (19 children)
So are we getting modded down for rejected submissions now? Hmm, the whole site could be turning toxic. Never saw a whole site go toxic before, with the possible exception of the old site. Sad. Of course, when the FCC is faking Donald's orgasms, and hand size, what else can be expected?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:59AM (1 child)
Get pregnant!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @07:21AM
NO!! Do you really want more of those? Neuter it instead!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:09PM
"I'm not a troll!"
- aristarchus (troll)
"The whole site is going toxic!"
- aristarchus (toxic user)
"My flamebait submissions are getting rejected!"
- aristarchus (sad)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:39PM
No, you're not. You're getting modded down for being an entirely predictable troll. Step your game back up and give us the entertainment you used to and you might get some karma back.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:19PM
It's happened, likely a great many times.
Little Green Footballs used to be a haven of true investigative journalism, documenting and exposing many lies of the mainstream media long before "fake news" was a buzzword. Then Ron Paul ran for pres in 2008 and the site owner and visible userbase lost their sanity. There's no other rational way to explain the explosion of emotion based hyperbole and self-contradictory statements made against the man. I wasn't the first reader to leave in disgust, nor the last.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:43PM
If that is what you think then please don't let us stop you from leaving. Maybe this site will become a little less toxic thereby.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:10AM
"I'm not a troll!"
- aristarchus (troll)
"The whole site is going toxic!"
- aristarchus (toxic user)
"My flamebait submissions are getting rejected!"
- aristarchus (sad)
Oh - that's interesting: This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
Alright - mod banned by the Buzzard in 2017. Think about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:30AM
Aristarchus was never his mother's favorite -- and he was an only child. -- Thomas Berger
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:48AM
Oh, for fuck's sake, you big baby - how low does your karma go? Down to 40? Down to 10? Every time you refresh your page, you look first at your karma level? WHO GIVES A FUCK?!?! If you've got something to s̶a̶y̶ troll, then troll it. What do you care for karma? Baby fucking greeks don't believe in karma do they?
If your karma were consistently below zero, and, as a consequence, you were unable to post comments, THEN you might have something to bitch about. Meanwhile, there are many other users who think you deserve a karma rating well below zero.
Stop sniveling, troll. Troll tears are caustic, and we don't need the soylents corroding.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by aristarchus on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:37AM (9 children)
Well, if everyone is finished professing undying love for aristarchus, this was something of a serious question. Usually when my karma dips, as I imagine happens to everyone, there is an identifiable or at least proximate down-mod somewhere in my stats. Recently I have not been able to identify the source of the karma dip, which is puzzling. Thus the question.
Of course, the entire system is rather opaque, and not that important, unless someone is using "troll" or "flamebait" for disagree, or particular editors are biased and prejudicial against the submissions of certain soylentils. Things like this can damage SoylentNews.
It can be almost as bad as it getting out that almost all the comments on a proposed FCC policy change were spoofed, and who would have the admin super-powers to spoof emails massively? Just asking.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @07:19AM (1 child)
Finished? We'll let you know when we are finished with you, you dirty, stained, opaque douche nozzle. As the carrion crow said - step your game up. Don't be so fucking opaque. Change the water in your douche. Maybe put a little lavender or something in it. That stagnant ditch water you spew isn't going to get past any pussy lips. Hell, it doesn't even make it in the door. It just gets you kicked under the porch, out of sight, and out of mind. Have a crummy day, nozzle!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:21AM
Triggered, are we? Thank you for your contribution. I cannot really say that it improves SoylentNews, but it does provide some fiber. Or "Roughage", as we used to call it. Republican, I take it? Celebrating the Senate passage of the "Death to all Republicans Tax Bill"? Oh, yes, 51 votes, American will not forget this. Machiavelli wrote (while we are on the topic):
Surely you have read "The Prince", even though it is really only a job application, but more relevantly, the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio [wikipedia.org]; great stuff. Or does your "opaque" comment signify that you are a internet functioning illiterate? My apologies, of course.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 03 2017, @10:11AM (2 children)
Easy. You have trolled so much that there are enough incoming downmods to confuse you as to their origin. Maybe a comment got a -1 Troll and then a +1 Underrated mod, leaving a karmic balance of -1. Discussions are archived after a month. Maybe someone got around to reading one of your 3½-week-old comments and downmodded it. It's a problem of your own making, and has everything to do with your own toxic behavior rather than your imagined persecution by the site's editors.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:37AM (1 child)
You know, takyon, I am starting to believe you are correct. The entire system has grown so large that it exceeds the ability of a single human consciousness to comprehend. Or, it is rigged. But if only there was some automated tool, some algo-rythum, that could explain karma in human terms, you know, "karma -h". Are we not capable of this? Or do we enjoy aristarchus' paranoia more than we do jmorris'es? Seriously, the dude is deadpan paranoic. He thinks I am out to get him, which, actually, I am, but that is no reason for him to think that I am! So, to repeat: assignable moderation! I want to know who modded me what, when, and up the ying-yang how! Can we do this? If not, I will go down-mod jmorris One More Time!!! Must drive him crazy, you know. But then again, that is not too far for him. Seriously.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 05 2017, @02:11PM
You already make unprovoked attacks on users all the time, as you have done with this reply name dropping jmorris for fuck all reason. Now you want to see who modded who so you can go on a rant or witch hunt every time someone mods down one of your comments. Gee, I wonder what effect that would have on the "toxicity level" of the site. I think it has already been explained to you that that won't be happening anytime soon. Luckily for you, you will still be able to whine in off-topic threads such as this one.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @10:27AM (2 children)
I'm not a fan of yours, aristarchus, but my karma never ever dips. Learn from me!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday December 03 2017, @07:12PM (1 child)
Ah! If only I had the karma of an AC! But seriously, my soylentalish Anonymous Coward, you are not trying hard enough! There are enough right-wing nut-job haters on this site that anyone should be ashamed to not be down-modded!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:38PM
+1 Wise Words
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:16PM
You know there's a daily report of all of the moderations you've received, right?
https://soylentnews.org/messages.pl?op=display_prefs&userfield= [soylentnews.org]
Comment Moderation → Web | Email
#Opaque
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]