Title could use a 2021 in it to frame it as being separate from the current restoration of net neutrality.
It’s really unfortunate that, as far as I can see, there were zero consequences for this behavior. Maybe it’s lack of evidence tying it to the companies, but there didn’t seem to be serious attempts to investigate or curtail future behavior.
It was a $4.4 million fine to the companies who did the astroturfing. But they were just the hired hands, the ones who hired them to astroturf were never penalized.
There's precedent in other places (UDAAP) that a company is responsible for fuckery done on its behalf whether or not it directly ordered or even has direct knowledge of said fuckery.
We need more corporate regulations in that vein.
It should be impossible to outsource regulatory or legal risk. Outsourcing should subject you to a greater burden of oversight, not less.
This is why you keep a paper trail of who you've hired and have them keep a paper trail of what they've done. You can show what you've done and what you haven't!
You could engineer some sort of conspiracy to keep specific misbehavior off the paper trail, but that's difficult. Increasing the difficulty of cheating is a good thing.
After living so long with complete bullshit coming out of tech and finance sectors, I'm less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume it's a "don't say anything if you can just wink" kind of "no direct knowledge" situation.
Should there be? A single example isn't going to change a prevailing trend. If laws change to by and large hold companies responsible and make them liable for their outsourced ethical violations, the mindset will gradually change.
IMHO, this is good. Companies should take proactive effort to make sure that their suppliers behave ethically out of a fear they will be held responsible for any violations.
And if it actually happened the way I described, with a wink, there exists no evidence that it happened - yet it did. And that itself would be evidence that this mindset of mine has validity.
Trust is like a vase. It takes a lot of time and effort to make one. It takes a lot less time and effort to break one. And even if you fix it, you'll always be able to see the cracks.
That evidence is an established track record as an ethical and trustworthy participant in the marketplace. But that takes forever, success isn't guaranteed, and the ROI is worse than just screwing people over.
When it comes to voting in elections - we discard this type of article/headline with careless disregard. But when it comes to net neutrality, suddenly it's believable despite lacking evidence?
This particular AG has made a name for herself by being sensationalist and partisan. This is likely just more pandering...
> All told, the investigation found that nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million comments the FCC received in its 2017 proceeding to repeal net neutrality rules were fake. About 8.5 million of those comments were sent by people who simply didn’t exist. Many, however, simply used the names of real people without their knowledge.
Not finding a person's name doesn't mean that wasn't a human that submitted the comment. It's an online form - people will do things to remain anonymous, including making up names.
My dead mother submitted a comment in favor of Comcast and against Net Neutrality. Anyone involved in this is trash and should have to experience someone abusing the memory of their dead loved ones.
It's far more likely someone typed a random name into the form that happened to have been your mother's versus obtained a list of dead people and wrote their names - isn't it?
There's no identity check for submitting the comment form. It's as simple as lying on the form.
No, it is certainly not. The assumption a name is unique is a fallacy.
Besides, what did you do - search the millions of public comments for your mother's name on the off chance it was used? And her comment was "in support of Comcast", whatever that means?
Using a dead person's name for a public comment is also not a smart way to poison the outcome either. 95% of citizens weren't going to leave a comment anyway - so just use living people's names if for some reason you feel the need to use a real name at all - it would make it at least plausible a real comment was submitted. After all, wow many Frank Smith's do you think exist in Ohio, for instance?
There's enough real stuff regarding this issue, we don't need to add fake anecdotes.
Title could use a 2021 in it to frame it as being separate from the current restoration of net neutrality.
It’s really unfortunate that, as far as I can see, there were zero consequences for this behavior. Maybe it’s lack of evidence tying it to the companies, but there didn’t seem to be serious attempts to investigate or curtail future behavior.
The consequence was a $4.4 million fine. Definitely not a deterrent in my opinion given the potential upside.
It was a $4.4 million fine to the companies who did the astroturfing. But they were just the hired hands, the ones who hired them to astroturf were never penalized.
Crazy how we all never really do anything about this.
The wealthy and powerful certainly do have us all thoroughly distracted with our race/sexuality/immigration/etc wars don't they.
Limited liability for the win!
The actual document - https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/oag-fakecommentsreport...
> The OAG has not found evidence, however, that the broadband companies that funded and organized these lead generators had direct knowledge of fraud.
There's precedent in other places (UDAAP) that a company is responsible for fuckery done on its behalf whether or not it directly ordered or even has direct knowledge of said fuckery.
We need more corporate regulations in that vein.
It should be impossible to outsource regulatory or legal risk. Outsourcing should subject you to a greater burden of oversight, not less.
Doesn't that enable framing your opponent with intentionally sloppy fake comments? Happens in the black hat SEO world all the time.
This is why you keep a paper trail of who you've hired and have them keep a paper trail of what they've done. You can show what you've done and what you haven't!
You could engineer some sort of conspiracy to keep specific misbehavior off the paper trail, but that's difficult. Increasing the difficulty of cheating is a good thing.
After living so long with complete bullshit coming out of tech and finance sectors, I'm less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume it's a "don't say anything if you can just wink" kind of "no direct knowledge" situation.
There’s no evidence that can be provided to change that mindset
Should there be? A single example isn't going to change a prevailing trend. If laws change to by and large hold companies responsible and make them liable for their outsourced ethical violations, the mindset will gradually change.
IMHO, this is good. Companies should take proactive effort to make sure that their suppliers behave ethically out of a fear they will be held responsible for any violations.
And if it actually happened the way I described, with a wink, there exists no evidence that it happened - yet it did. And that itself would be evidence that this mindset of mine has validity.
Trust is like a vase. It takes a lot of time and effort to make one. It takes a lot less time and effort to break one. And even if you fix it, you'll always be able to see the cracks.
There is, but it "doesn't scale."
That evidence is an established track record as an ethical and trustworthy participant in the marketplace. But that takes forever, success isn't guaranteed, and the ROI is worse than just screwing people over.
Sure there is, a system created for all that benefits all. Since we're so far from that its laughable, we can consider the evidence not provided.
When it comes to voting in elections - we discard this type of article/headline with careless disregard. But when it comes to net neutrality, suddenly it's believable despite lacking evidence?
This particular AG has made a name for herself by being sensationalist and partisan. This is likely just more pandering...
> All told, the investigation found that nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million comments the FCC received in its 2017 proceeding to repeal net neutrality rules were fake. About 8.5 million of those comments were sent by people who simply didn’t exist. Many, however, simply used the names of real people without their knowledge.
Not finding a person's name doesn't mean that wasn't a human that submitted the comment. It's an online form - people will do things to remain anonymous, including making up names.
I'm afraid this is evidence of nothing.
18 million comments were fake, in one form or another.
Meanwhile, the goddamn Heritage Foundation lists on their website for voter fraud a total of 1499 instances. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2XP2AI/
So how about you not.
My dead mother submitted a comment in favor of Comcast and against Net Neutrality. Anyone involved in this is trash and should have to experience someone abusing the memory of their dead loved ones.
It's far more likely someone typed a random name into the form that happened to have been your mother's versus obtained a list of dead people and wrote their names - isn't it?
There's no identity check for submitting the comment form. It's as simple as lying on the form.
> in favor of Comcast and against Net Neutrality
Also, let's not make up stories about this issue.
It’s the truth. Family name is unique in the US. Other than my family, there are no other people with this surname in the SS death rolls.
Your behavior is not desirable here. Stop attacking people who don’t share your world view.
> Family name is unique in the US.
No, it is certainly not. The assumption a name is unique is a fallacy.
Besides, what did you do - search the millions of public comments for your mother's name on the off chance it was used? And her comment was "in support of Comcast", whatever that means?
Using a dead person's name for a public comment is also not a smart way to poison the outcome either. 95% of citizens weren't going to leave a comment anyway - so just use living people's names if for some reason you feel the need to use a real name at all - it would make it at least plausible a real comment was submitted. After all, wow many Frank Smith's do you think exist in Ohio, for instance?
There's enough real stuff regarding this issue, we don't need to add fake anecdotes.
You really need to take a little internet break.
What do you mean, make up stories? I saw these sorts comments myself. You can still find them.
Jeez.
Can we please for once put some execs behind bars for such obvious fraud??
Probably not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
[dead]