Net Neutrality Battle Gets Silly... Astroturfers, Sock Puppets, Student Projects, Overwritten Word Docs... Oh My
from the and-here-we-go dept
This was pretty predictable, but it's still unfortunate that it's happening. We've complained in the past that both sides on the net neutrality debate are exaggerating and making absolutely ridiculous arguments, and even though I agree that putting net neutrality in the law in some manner is a bad, bad idea, I have to admit that the arguments by most of those against such rules is so ridiculous that it makes me wonder they're thinking. There were the outright lies -- such as the ridiculous claim that Google gets its bandwidth for free (to which I asked if the lobbyist who made that statement would pay Google's broadband bill -- and he never responded). Then there are the claims that net neutrality would mean the end of the internet or no more iPhones, both of which are ridiculous hyperbole that have no basis in truth.Given that there actually are perfectly good arguments against regulations on this issue without resorting to such ridiculous lies, I actually think that such claims really hurt the case of those who are worried about the unintended consequences of opening up the internet to regulation.
However, with the FCC's recent decision to sorta, kinda, partially reclassify broadband access, it seems like the lobbyists, sock puppets and shills are going into overdrive, and it's not helping anyone. In fact, part of the mess is that everyone now is looking for big "gotchas" on either side. For example, the website Think Progress got its hands on a PowerPoint apparently coordinating the ridiculously over-the-top anti-net-neutrality campaign, which they're apparently trying to rebrand "net brutality."
Of course, the other side isn't immune to questionable activities either. It didn't take long for the press to realize that a letter that was being passed around by Rep. Jay Inslee in support of the FCC's move had metadata indicating it was actually written by the policy director of Free Press, a group that has been ferociously pushing for net neutrality regulations for quite some time. Ridiculously, Inslee is trying to pretend that the document wasn't written by Free Press by claiming a staffer had just typed over a Word doc sent by Free Press:
Inslee's office told Hillicon Valley on Tuesday that Scott did not, in fact, draft the letter on behalf of the congressman. Rather, as Inslee's staff scrambled to put out something last week in support of the FCC's goals, it consulted old documents and industry talking points for ideas. A staff member ultimately typed the new letter on top of the Word document that Free Press previously sent Inslee -- the date of which was May 7 -- meaning the meta-data still reflected Scott as its author.I mean, it even sounds like Kellar knows he's not fooling anyone with the "Yep, that's it" part of the statement. It's about this far away from "Yeah... that's the ticket..."
"Yep, that's it, in our haste we typed over a word document with someone else's meta tag," said communications director Robert Kellar. "There is no plot and we created the letter."
Either way, as we predicted, the whole thing is becoming a political food fight being manhandled by lobbyists and special interests, with little regard for the deeper, important, underlying issues. Even when moves are being made by people outside of the beltway, it's being dissected for the driving forces behind it, rather than what actually makes sense. What comes out in the end is going to be shaped by those lobbyists and special interests. And that's my big fear with all of this. The end result isn't going to have anything to do with actually looking at what's best for the internet or the American people, but who can game the system better and turn this into a hotter political football.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lobbyists, net neutrality, politics, sock puppets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First you forget your login password, then your grammatical ability slowly slipped away. Now your overall coherence is starting to fade.
Even though you have clashed frequently with the authors and readers of Techdirt, I can assure you that all us give our complete support to you in your struggle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. Here's to hoping his Alzheimer's causes him to forget to tuck his winky back in his pants before yanking that zipper up at the urinal....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love my country but I do see it's flaws. The problem with our government is that we have only the left and the right. RIGHT? We need up and down and all around parties. Then and only then will things really get challenged. Look at our neighbors to the south. For centuries, El Pri (Republican sort of) dominated the nation over the PRD. But then el PAN, which actually works for the people got it together and won.
Left or Right, they're just looking for their best interest not ours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality
The anecdotal evidence is that the private sector will bastardize net neutrality to extort further profits. The mantra of less government regulation is simply another populist example of giving corporations the unintended "freedom" to lie and steal.
If you want less government, demand that the corporations provide some substantial promises that they won't break net neutrality. It's about time that those who want freedom from government regulation behave ethically. Freedom is not a license to steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who do you trust least?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who do you trust least?
(well, that varies by country, but it seems very questionable in the USA...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nature of the beast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue is so convoluted now. They are trying to reframe the legitimate neutrality we are all fans of as a regulation where the neutrality is guaranteed/enforced by the FCC or FTC. They are calling it "Obamacare for the Internet," "government takeover." This is not Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is, for the most part, having everyone (ISPs, hosts, Google) not do anything differently than they are now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why metadata is bad and people still don't get it.
I work teaching technical skills to lawyers who still 'don't get the whole metadata thing.'
I swear I do my best to convey this idea. Maybe forwarding your story to them would make them understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why metadata is bad and people still don't get it.
The worst 'over exposure' for a document I've ever seen was by an attorney who inadvertently saved a (confidential) strategy document for a real estate deal into the User/Documents file on a desktop computer in a hotel room.
It's always amusing to check those default locations on shared computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why metadata is bad and people still don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]