It would be naively optimistic to think the FCC is going to just remove the spam from their counts willingly. At best they may remove from their counts any cases where someone's name was confirmed to have been used fraudulently. But how many of those 440,000 comments would that end up happening for?<p>Unless the FCC fears public backlash, I think they're going to aggressively exercise plausible deniability on the spam counts, and push through their agenda using those counts as justification.
That caveat, yikes!<p>>there is some evidence of botting/spamming on the pro-NN side as well (though likely not to the same degree), which is not investigated in this post, and could shift conclusions.
I saw similar. Data for those that want to do their own analysis here: <a href="https://github.com/lutostag/gofccyourself-data/releases" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/lutostag/gofccyourself-data/releases</a>
It's obvious to the tech community that net neutrality is a good thing. Let me pose a counter view in any case: what if verizon/comcast said they will give consumers a 75% discount should they be implement the anti-net neutrality way? After all, this is what Google/Facebook does. Give things away for free and their version of net-neutrality is they get to decide who pops up in the first page results above all (ads).
I am hoping (perhaps wishfully) that 5G wireless technology will make much of this conversation moot. The reason why broadband companies are even theoretically able to get away with throttling certain sites is because there is so little consumer choice in broadband; few in this country have a choice at all.<p>Assuming 5G delivers on its promise of broadband quality internet (far from assured), most US consumers will immediately have far more options. Competition between service providers will be a much better check than regulation.
Can't see why anyone wouldn't support net neutrality, especially consumers. If only the administration would listen, our opinion doesn't mean much.
1: No informed citizen in their right mind wants this to pass<p>2: Big telecoms are making a lot of spam to force democracy to their whim<p>3: People become aware of this and its talked about in news, "Well I heard the count was neck in neck, 'Oh well I heard that Comcast paid spammers'", deepening public hate of Comcast-esque companies<p>4: Comcast et al will get their way as usual and next week no one will care
> in this post I use the term “spam” to connote an identical bit of text that was repeatedly filed many times<p>Wow! Nice definition of spam. Remove the most popular opinion, and hey look! everybody supports NN.<p>> there is some evidence of botting/spamming on the pro-NN side as well (though likely not to the same degree), which is not addressed in this post, and could shift conclusions.<p>IMO, this is just a blatantly biased attempt to delegitimatize any anti-NN feedback. Many people send their comments thru websites with boilerplate text, but they do it in support of what they believe. The author has presented no evidence that the comments he removed from consideration are actually spam and no evidence that the second most popular phrase (in favor of NN) is not spam.
Did anyone else catch Ajit Pai's first public comment since we flooded the FCC with pro-net neutrality comments? [1]<p>If he thinks that is hip or cool, he's completely out of touch.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBt84HNAGwU" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBt84HNAGwU</a>
I like the part where he "supported" his thesis that a certain class of comments is "spam" by checking a random sample of the associated email addresses against HaveIBeenPwned and finding that 75% of them showed up in there, but did not bother to make sure this is actually a real signal by checking a random sample of "real" comments as well.
Corporate interests currently support net neutrality regulations for whatever reason. So you get entertainers like John Oliver pushing young folks who don't know any better to submit comments. Free market solutions are rarely in vogue. Thus the discrepency.
Thats how democracy dies. It doesn't have to change it explicitly, it has to incite tact, and leave a trail. Every day, we are making history. If we do not speak, then the future will think we weren't talking.