Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday October 17 2018, @07:47PM   Printer-friendly

Submitted via IRC for BoyceMagooglyMonkey

After removing all duplicate and fake comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission last year, a Stanford researcher has found that 99.7 percent[pdf] of public comments—about 800,000 in all—were pro-net neutrality.

"With the fog of fraud and spam lifted from the comment corpus, lawmakers and their staff, journalists, interested citizens and policymakers can use these reports to better understand what Americans actually said about the repeal of net neutrality protections and why 800,000 Americans went further than just signing a petition for a redress of grievances by actually putting their concerns in their own words," Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford University, wrote in a blog post Monday.

Source: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kmedj/997-percent-of-unique-fcc-comments-favored-net-neutrality


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 18 2018, @01:43AM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 18 2018, @01:43AM (#750261) Homepage Journal

    Sometime, way back in the mists of time, before the internet, I read some paper that claimed that ~20% of all Americans had Cherokee blood in them. I didn't question it, really. I just took the statement at face value. The logic seemed solid. The Cherokee were pretty welcoming toward the white man. A lot of Cherokee married whites. If I could identify or find that paper again, I might search their sources to learn how they arrived at their conclusion.

    Primarily because of that paper, it doesn't surprise me that any white person might claim some Indian heritage.

    Living in SW Arkansas, it seems that far more than 20% are part Indian. There really aren't a lot of pale lily-white people around here.

    --
    Don’t confuse the news with the truth.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Thursday October 18 2018, @08:20PM

    by edIII (791) on Thursday October 18 2018, @08:20PM (#750636)

    I never questioned her statement because my family has a similar heritage. Oklahoma Sooners. Like you said, Cherokees marrying whites wasn't all that unusual. So if you have family history going back at least 150 years in that area, claiming Native American ancestry isn't all that far of a stretch.

    However, I also understand it is irrelevant. Only the tribes themselves determine membership, and they determine that on more than just blood. Warren can claim Cherokee blood, but not tribal membership or affiliation, and I believe she has stated that fact openly.

    The question is did she use it to gain an advantage in applying for higher education? I didn't claim anything other than Caucasian on mine, even though I apparently have quite a bit more Native American ancestry in me. I'm certain that more than one of my great great grandparents was either full or half. It was important in that side of the family, and passed down. Still, I didn't use it on any forms because I'm the most white Republican looking motherfucker for miles around :) Who would believe me?

    That's the only part I find a little off-putting about Warren. Apparently that blood was exaggerated a little, and she played Affirmative Action games with it.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.