Page 36 of 38 FirstFirst ...
26
34
35
36
37
38
LastLast
  1. #701
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    I repeat, why ask the FCC?

    Are you aware that half of the comments were copy/pasted from a common source, by the way, and that this applies to both anti-NN and pro-NN comments? Ie, the comment with the topmost count (2.8 million) was pro-NN.

    So, sites have been sending people to the FCC form, telling people what to write advocating either in favor of NN or otherwise. What does FCC have to do with it?
    because dead people can't use the internet. yet.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  2. #702
    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    Because they can provide records for the investigation. Clearly there were bots involved and that information needs to be passed along to law enforcement. Why refuse to help?
    I am not familiar with the way their form inputs are set up, but from what I heard they said that (a) they don't want to give away data for legit posters, and (b) it is difficult to separate data from legit vs non-legit posters. The latter can easily be true, as to the former I have no idea if this is true, but it could easily be.

    More importantly, I am not sure what is there to find? As I said there were mass-posts both ways. Worse, I am not sure why you'd want to separate them because, what, people frequenting a particular web site and heeding the call and copy / pasting the same thing shouldn't count? And if they are OK and it's only the bots that aren't OK, I am not even sure how to separate legit vs non-legit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiri View Post
    Hmm, let me explain in a bit more detail.
    Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the FCC is required to attain public input on their planned measure and 'seriously consider relevant comments' in their decision making. As such, the comments posted there under the falsified identity can be used at least to outweigh the strong influx of pro-net neutrality comments. The FCC ostensibly can assist in finding out who stole that identity (and might be using it for other means) but refuses to do so. The FCC was also remiss in creating a process that prevented identity theft such as this. Ajit Pai allowed for public opinion - that was explicitly supposed to mater - to be undermined and falsified, so asking him why he allowed for this to happen seems reasonable.
    I get all that, but how do you even tell falsified identity vs non-falsified identity? That's a lot of work. Is it reasonable to ask FCC to do it? That's 22 million accounts. Now, if there is a legit way for them just to give out all logs and be done with it, that's perhaps fine, whatever agency would have too much free time on their hands could do that by itself (to, say, conclude, that 30% of the responses are fake, then what?), but there might be implications here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Sum total, it's big noise about nothing again. There are bots, yes. Some even vote. That's the Internet for you.

    What do you suggest - to invalidate any poll in which the bots voted (and yes, their votes are targeted)?? That's silly. That's just making your votings victims to an arbitrary third party who bothers to sabotage them. If you suggest that the polls should be set up in a way that prevents bots, then sure, I am with you, but don't humor yourself, this is difficult and there are big cons as well (like, the participation is going to be miles lower and then it would be a question of how useful a poll with ten thousand participants even is, why even have it).

  3. #703
    Pandaren Monk wunksta's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    I am not familiar with the way their form inputs are set up, but from what I heard they said that (a) they don't want to give away data for legit posters, and (b) it is difficult to separate data from legit vs non-legit posters. The latter can easily be true, as to the former I have no idea if this is true, but it could easily be.
    Companies provide personal data to assist legal investigations, I'm not sure why this would be a valid excuse.

    More importantly, I am not sure what is there to find?
    That's not really the point. It's for the investigation to determine if there is anything useful, not for the FCC to decide on behalf of law enforcement.

    "you don't need to look in the trunk, there's nothing to find in there"

    As I said there were mass-posts both ways. Worse, I am not sure why you'd want to separate them because, what, people frequenting a particular web site and heeding the call and copy / pasting the same thing shouldn't count? And if they are OK and it's only the bots that aren't OK, I am not even sure how to separate legit vs non-legit.
    Again, your lack of ability or experience in the matter isn't relevant. It's up to law enforcement to do an adequate investigation. And you seem to be under the impression that millions of individuals just happened to send the same personal information for every post, which is ludicrous.

    I get all that, but how do you even tell falsified identity vs non-falsified identity? That's a lot of work. Is it reasonable to ask FCC to do it? That's 22 million accounts. Now, if there is a legit way for them just to give out all logs and be done with it, that's perhaps fine, but there might be implications here.
    They already have a number for what they determined was falsified identity, 7.5 million identical comments that came from 45,000 unique names and addresses.

    Secondly, why open up a discussion regarding NN repeal, decide to repeal it since it was so popular and when a massive amounts of fraudulent comments are found, say there's nothing to worry about and there doesn't need to be investigation.

  4. #704
    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    Again, your lack of ability or experience in the matter isn't relevant. It's up to law enforcement to do an adequate investigation. And you seem to be under the impression that millions of individuals just happened to send the same personal information for every post, which is ludicrous.
    Where are you getting millions of individuals with the same personal information? There were millions of individuals with the same comments (likely coming from web sites providing instructions to vote). Individuals with the same name (not even the details) were happening much less frequently.

    Did you even look into the numbers or did you again go off on a BS summary from the media which managed to tell only a couple of things out of the findings screwing up the picture completely, like usual?

    As I already said, there were mass-posts going both ways, too.

    I repeat, what it is you want to find? You don't know? So, you just hope to spelunk something out of the pile of comments? I mean, it's fine by me, but your side looks really desperate.

    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    Secondly, why open up a discussion regarding NN repeal, decide to repeal it since it was so popular and when a massive amounts of fraudulent comments are found, say there's nothing to worry about and there doesn't need to be investigation.
    What massive amounts of fraudulent comments? What do you classify as fraudulent comment? Be specific, please, because so far it's been nothing but uninformed generalities. Again.

    When the hell will you and others learn to research the topic before arguing about it vehemently??? It is just tiring to be hearing unsubstantiated vague nonsense. This is exactly lots of noise about nothing.

  5. #705
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    I get all that, but how do you even tell falsified identity vs non-falsified identity? That's a lot of work. Is it reasonable to ask FCC to do it? That's 22 million accounts. Now, if there is a legit way for them just to give out all logs and be done with it, that's perhaps fine, whatever agency would have too much free time on their hands could do that by itself (to, say, conclude, that 30% of the responses are fake, then what?), but there might be implications here.
    Pretty easy to figure out most of them. Multiple comments from the same name can be weeded out. But most tellingly, things like this largely would have originated from the same IP address or a set of same IP addresses. Simply put, weed out oall comments from those IP addresses, or restrict them to a single comment.

    I'm not sure why we're pretending this is 1843 and that all of this has to be done by hand. None of this has to be done by hand. The brunt of the work could have been done by algorithms 15 years ago. Today, with what we do with machine learning, a single programmer could facilitate all of this in a single afternoon.

    But nearly all FCC defenses require the brain being put in a jar.

  6. #706
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapemask View Post
    Pretty easy to figure out most of them. Multiple comments from the same name can be weeded out. But most tellingly, things like this largely would have originated from the same IP address or a set of same IP addresses. Simply put, weed out oall comments from those IP addresses, or restrict them to a single comment.

    I'm not sure why we're pretending this is 1843 and that all of this has to be done by hand. None of this has to be done by hand. The brunt of the work could have been done by algorithms 15 years ago. Today, with what we do with machine learning, a single programmer could facilitate all of this in a single afternoon.

    But nearly all FCC defenses require the brain being put in a jar.
    There are not many comments from the same name (usually, fake).

    You can't weed out comments from the same IP address because users are sharing IP addresses left and right.

    Just the technical details.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    They already have a number for what they determined was falsified identity, 7.5 million identical comments that came from 45,000 unique names and addresses.
    These two numbers are not about the same comments. It's top 7 comments voting 7.5 million in total. And top 7 names voting 45,000 times in total.

    RESEARCH what you are talking about. You end up spewing BS all over without noticing. Stop arguing based on a single screwed up sentence from a media outlet. Whenever you see a number, go find a source and look up what that number is. Especially when the debate is about a thing which the media has no clue about and has a side in.

  7. #707
    Pandaren Monk wunksta's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    Where are you getting millions of individuals with the same personal information? There were millions of individuals with the same comments (likely coming from web sites providing instructions to vote). Individuals with the same name (not even the details) were happening much less frequently.

    Did you even look into the numbers or did you again go off on a BS summary from the media which managed to tell only a couple of things out of the findings screwing up the picture completely, like usual?
    From the AG's office:
    https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-s...ality-comments

    According to the AG Schneiderman, "over 5,000 people have filed reports with the Attorney General’s office regarding identities used to submit fake comments". They go on to state that "as many as two million comments misused the identities of real Americans".

    I repeat, what it is you want to find? You don't know? So, you just hope to spelunk something out of the pile of comments? I mean, it's fine by me, but your side looks really desperate.
    Hopefully we would find out who was behind using fraudulent information to sway a vote. If this was just millions of Americans using premade templates and putting in stupid names, it wouldn't be a huge deal. However, there's evidence that these comments were 1) using real people's names without their knowledge and 2) a large amount of comments were being sent by a small group of people

    What massive amounts of fraudulent comments? What do you classify as fraudulent comment? Be specific, please, because so far it's been nothing but uninformed generalities. Again.
    Using someone else's personal information without their knowledge is fraudulent. Two million sounds like a massive amount to me.

    These two numbers are not about the same comments. It's top 7 comments voting 7.5 million in total. And top 7 names voting 45,000 times in total.

    RESEARCH what you are talking about. You end up spewing BS all over without noticing. Stop arguing based on a single screwed up sentence from a media outlet. Whenever you see a number, go find a source and look up what that number is. Especially when the debate is about a thing which the media has no clue about and has a side in.
    These numbers were provided by the FCC spokesperson, Mr Hart, "The FCC received more than 7.5 million comments consisting of the same short-form letter supporting current rules from about 45,000 unique email address"
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/million...ake-1513099188

    The top 7 names were fake and also around 45,000. But that doesn't explain all of the reports of fraudulent information being used. It also doesn't explain the coordinated bot effort.

    That's the point of a full investigation, to look into what happened.

  8. #708
    Quote Originally Posted by Mittens View Post
    The regulation in question is whether or not zero rating is part of the default original packages. As long as its optional is fine under the eyes of the EU, that is how that Portuguese company got away with its zero rating packages and special benefits to big name apps who could've easily paid to be featured there.
    No, there are other requirmements as well.

  9. #709
    https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

    The FCC stole Obama's identity to attack Net Neutrality.

  10. #710
    Quote Originally Posted by johnhoftb View Post
    https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

    The FCC stole Obama's identity to attack Net Neutrality.
    Someone did, not necessarily the FCC. The FCC is just refusing to cooperate with any investigation into all the fake comments.

  11. #711
    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    From the AG's office: ...
    Thanks, that was a good post.

    It would be interesting to know how exactly the AG's office came to their number of 100k+ comments with stolen identities for New York / 2 mil comments with stolen identities overall. I would note that 2 mil unusable comments out of 22 mil is pretty normal, but I'd still like to know how exactly it was determined that there are 2 mil comments with stolen identities, it seems to me that the AG's office overplayed here (and classified too broadly).

    If I find any information on the topic, I will post it.
    Last edited by rda; 2017-12-18 at 12:08 PM.

  12. #712
    Pandaren Monk wunksta's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Motherboard
    Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False

    But internal FCC documents obtained by Motherboard using a Freedom of Information Act request show that the independent, nonpartisan FCC Office of Inspector General—acting on orders from Congressional Republicans—investigated the claim that Obama interfered with the FCC’s net neutrality process and found it was nonsense. This Republican narrative of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet, then, was wholly refuted by an independent investigation and its findings were not made public prior to Thursday’s vote

    Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Motherboard obtained a summary of the Inspector General’s report, which has not been released publicly and is marked “Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive Information." After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: “We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process.”
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...general-report

  13. #713
    Quote Originally Posted by Mittens View Post
    Where do you think this images comes from?

    From a mobile phone company?
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  14. #714
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    From a mobile phone company?
    Actually it's from Portugal which has no net neutrality, they split their internet packages in this matter. But this is exactly what the ISPs in the US have put forward as a plan in different lawsuits with the FCC and FTC. Comcast is the one pushing it the most I suspect they will be hit first and the hardest. Comcast is already pushing for congress to put the repeal of net neutrality into law.

  15. #715
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    What do you suggest - to invalidate any poll in which the bots voted (and yes, their votes are targeted)?? That's silly.
    What makes this situation different is that it's not a poll. The FCC has to, by law, consider the comments that it received while drawing up it's rules. There is no way that they considered the comments in this case. To make matters worse, there is obviously something untoward going on because the volumes of comments for and against don't match public polls on the matter with roughly 80% of people against the removal of NN but the comment counts didn't match that. There is also a large number of fraudulent comments, that have been identified, in favor of removing NN. Basically, the FCC is just ignoring the comments because of the debacle when they should have been considering them as part of the rule making process. If they were considering them then they would still be looking through the comments.

  16. #716
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Actually it's from Portugal which has no net neutrality, they split their internet packages in this matter. But this is exactly what the ISPs in the US have put forward as a plan in different lawsuits with the FCC and FTC. Comcast is the one pushing it the most I suspect they will be hit first and the hardest. Comcast is already pushing for congress to put the repeal of net neutrality into law.
    On the flip side, Chuck Schumer is planning on forcing a vote that will reinstate Net Neutrality. Sounds like it just needs a simple majority, but it would need to pass both the Senate (quite possible) and House (more dubious). I'm not getting my hopes up, though.

  17. #717
    Herald of the Titans CostinR's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Alindra View Post
    On the flip side, Chuck Schumer is planning on forcing a vote that will reinstate Net Neutrality. Sounds like it just needs a simple majority, but it would need to pass both the Senate (quite possible) and House (more dubious). I'm not getting my hopes up, though.
    Schumer does have 49 people in his Caucuss with Doug Jones. So all he needs are 2 Republicans to vote in favor.

    The House is another matter.
    "Life is one long series of problems to solve. The more you solve, the better a man you become.... Tribulations spawn in life and over and over again we must stand our ground and face them."

  18. #718
    Quote Originally Posted by johnhoftb View Post
    https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

    The FCC stole Obama's identity to attack Net Neutrality.
    Wow...ty for the laugh. Obama attacking his own administration was quite the funny read.
    The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.

  19. #719
    Quote Originally Posted by Alindra View Post
    On the flip side, Chuck Schumer is planning on forcing a vote that will reinstate Net Neutrality. Sounds like it just needs a simple majority, but it would need to pass both the Senate (quite possible) and House (more dubious). I'm not getting my hopes up, though.
    There's no way Trump would sign this even if it passes the house and the senate.

  20. #720
    The Lightbringer Blade Wolf's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Futa Heaven
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    There's no way Trump would sign this even if it passes the house and the senate.
    Just another way to prove how corrupt the republicans are as everyone who goes against that can be used for ads in 2018 as a way to attack them.
    "when i'm around you i'm like a level 5 metapod. all i can do is harden!"

    Quote Originally Posted by unholytestament View Post
    The people who cry for censorship aren't going to be buying the game anyway. Censoring it, is going to piss off the people who were going to buy it.
    Barret: It's a good thing we had those Phoenix Downs.
    Cloud: You have the downs!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •