Two Separate Studies Show That The Vast Majority Of People Who Said They Support Ajit Pai's Plan... Were Fake
from the fake-news dept
The fact that the FCC comments for Ajit Pai's net neutrality repeal were stuffed with fake comments is nothing new at all. We first reported on it back in May, and reports of comments from totally fake people or long dead people continue to pop up. Even worse are multiple stories of people having their own identities used to file comments, often opposed to their own views. The FCC has consistently responded that it doesn't care. New York's Attorney General has been investigating this as fraud, and asked the FCC to delay its net neutrality repeal until after the investigation was complete -- a request the FCC completely ignored. And, as we just noted a little while ago, Schneiderman recently announced that he's found over 2 million fake comments.
But it's easy to say "well, all these fake comments mean all the comments can be ignored." But it's important to look at the source of these fake comments and on which side they ended up. And just this week two new studies have come out, both taking a really deep dive into the fake comments. The Wall Street Journal did an investigation and reached out to 2,757 people who had supposedly commented. 72% of them said they had not posted the comments.
But even more thorough and more interesting is a new report that just came out this morning, from Startup Policy Lab's "Truth in Public Comments" project. Its methodology was even more thorough than the Wall Street Journal's. It took a random sample of 450,000 public commenters, and asked them "did you submit the comment quoted below to the FCC, yes or no?" The results are astounding:
88% of survey respondents whose emails were used to submit pro-repeal comments replied, “no,” that they did not submit the comment . Conversely, only 4% of pro-net neutrality respondents said that they did not submit the comment attributed to them.
Let's unpack that again to make it clear. Out of a fairly massive sample of FCC commenters nearly all of the ones supporting Pai's plan were fake. And nearly all of the ones supporting the existing rules were real. Here, see it in graphical form:
And this happened across multiple samples that the TiPC project ran. Each time, it showed that nearly all of the support for Pai's plan was fake. And nearly all the support for existing rules was real.
Also, quite telling: in sending out these emails asking people whether or not they filed, most of the responses they got came from people who supported net neutrality. The response rate among those who supported Pai? Tiny. Because most of them appear to be fake.
This is not to say that there weren't fake comments in support of the old rules. They did exist. But as the TiPC report notes, the "fakes" in support of the old rule were fairly obvious -- using obviously fake emails and names. The comments in support of Pai, while fake, used real emails and names that tried to appear real:
The FCC received spam comments that supported both the pro-net neutrality and pro-repeal. The difference, however, is that the majority of spam comments associated with email addresses supporting pro-net neutrality were ignored by the FCC because they were obviously fake. Conversely, we must conclude that the spam comments associated with email addresses that supported pro-repeal email addresses were a deliberate campaign to evade the eyes of regulators and influence the rulemaking process.
The discrepancy rests in the nature of the bounceback of emails. The survey resulted in a high bounce rate for emails associated with pro-net neutrality using unsophisticated approaches. Examples of an unsophisticated spam comment are those the FCC acknowledged are, “[o] bviously, fake comments [...] by the Flash, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Superman are not going to dramatically impact our deliberations on this issue. ”
By contrast, it appears that the spam comments for emails associated with pro-repeal comments reflect deliberate action to use stolen identities. In these instances, millions of Americans may have had their identity harvested for the political objectives of supporting the repeal of net neutrality laws, regardless of whether that individual agreed with the position or even had a position on the proposal. Accordingly, unlike the submission from Batman, which the FCC was correct to ignore, millions of Americans had their voice taken and repurposed without their consent.
No matter where you stand on the question of net neutrality, this should be a major concern. Public commenting is important, but when the system is totally hijacked in a way that appears designed to deliberately skew or merely taint the results, it does no one any good at all.
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: ajit pai, fake comments, fcc, net neutrality
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Fake News
If you'd looked at the sidebar, you'd have seen an article titled No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed. Perhaps you should read it.
Leaving aside that that's a very stupid statement (waiting until after a thing happens to be afraid of it is a pretty poor way to avoid bad things happening -- "Hm, I'm standing on these railroad tracks and there's a train coming, but I'm not afraid of being hit by it, because it hasn't happened yet!"), we're not afraid of something that hasn't happened yet, we're afraid of something that has happened, repeatedly.
This list from freepress.net has been making the rounds; here it is again:
Now go hang out on some railroad tracks.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So what? Everyone knows they lie.
This reminds of one of those tactics where people are so busy talking about a bunch of lies that the real criminal yet to be caught is getting away. But since they found a liar, they make them a scapegoat so that they can sit back after fucking that person over and doing nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Two essentially duplicate articles an hour apart seems a bit unusual
They're not duplicates. This one references the other one. One is about Schneiderman's investigation, and the other (this one) is about these two studies that dig into the details of the fake comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suppose you want a guy with knowledge of the communications tech world in the FCC, but it seems like they put the wolves in charge of guarding the sheep pen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact TD has loads of articles talking about dubious information that the FCC uses when making judgements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President, so it's the politicians who get the blame. But that still that means that the FCC staff must implement and defend the policies of those political appointees, however corrupt.
The FCC is like a beanbag chair. It's shaped by the ass of the last person who sat on it. Now Trump sits on it, leaving an Ajit Pei shaped impression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what ?
Does anybody here have reliable information on what percent of Americans support NN versus those who do not ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what ?
Last I checked there were a lot of bought off politicians over this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what ?
then on what basis do we make the Net Neutrality policy decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what ?
sounds good but kinda vague
would a neutral referee find that polling very trustworthy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what ?
"Do you support Net Neutrality?"
"No! It's a liberal socialist policy from Obama that'll take our jobs!"
"Okay, do you support the only ISP available in your area being able to fuck you over even more than they already do?"
"No! Why would anyone want that?"
"Here's your sign"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So what ?
Unless you can up with a reason why treating internet traffic as equal at the transport layer regardless of source or destination should have prevented people making things up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what ?
The data is obvious to system admins and software engineers, but adoption of existing technology to screen out shill accounts is slow and expensive.
You will see a huge change in the quality of public discussion on the internet very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what ?
It's an arms race. As spam blockers improve, spammers improve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia: FCC: Offices
Have they done so? Or did Pai have their door bricked shut and wallpapered over with everyone in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
coder's veto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: coder's veto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: coder's veto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: coder's veto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, trying delete comments deemed fake or otherwise doing anything beyond passively collecting comments submitted opens the rule up to legal challenge. Why would Pai do anything to give his opponents additional ammunition in the inevitable lawsuit. Pai is following the letter of the law and taking the least risky path available by ignoring the false comment side show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let them get away with it, and it'll keep happening.
[ 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:
We are all long past maintaining any respectability when it comes to partisan politics. It is nothing more than one sycophant against the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Neither did the last federal election, but that doesn't mean it's not important.
Sure, the FCC should rely on common sense, expert advice and experience. But they're not doing that. Faked popularity is about the only thing between them and demands that they be thrown in jail on corruption charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You got the money or laws to make that happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
His argument is that public opinion doesn't matter, the fact is that Title II regulations have caused a decrease in broadband investment.
That, of course, is also bullshit, but it's the core of his defense.
Still, his complete dismissal of public opinion may hurt him in court.
Corruption charges? Nah. I think he'll lose in court, but I don't think he or any of the other commissioners will ever suffer any personal punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has he responded to the numerous experts who have chimed in and said it's a horrible idea, or did he just find other ways to reject them as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One way or another, we'll hear his rationalizations in court. I don't expect the judges to be impressed by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It matters to their credibility - which they seem to not care about. No one believes them and they do not care, this seems to be not a good thing - perhaps I am simply looking at it the wrong way .... LOL, not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Job
As BernardoVerda wrote in another topic:
But I'm sure you actually believe what you wrote. And I'm sure this post will be flagged as abusive for saying so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Job
True story, kids. The post above is what happens when you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
That's missing the elephant for the trees. What is a fake comment compared to a fake chairman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net brutality is the only way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is who and why.
I think the 2 million or so comments were spammed very intentionally to be caught. They are way too obvious. They look like someone wanted to be sure that they would be noticed, reported, and derided in places like this.
Unless you figure out the source, pointing out that there are fake comments isn't really useful. Cross them off the list, and move on.
For what it's worth, I consider "form mail" stuff to be equally useless. It should be reported as a single message with a list of signatories, so as not to bury the comments of people who took the time to actually write from their hearts and not doing a copy pasta job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody debates that there are fakes
Richard Bennett.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So why waste the resources. This is sorta like those town hall things where (some) people are allowed a few minutes to vent in front of their "leaders" about issues important to them (but their leaders) while those on the panel try to not fall asleep due to their indifference. Then the panel votes as they all agreed to prior to the meeting - making the meeting a waste but good window dressing for any passers by to see. Facades are all the rage these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, yes. http://www.emprata.com/reports/fcc-restoring-internet-freedom-docket/
Research firm Empirata analyzed results for validated email and unique comments. Filtering duplicate comments, email address and international submissions idintifying ip addresses (444k from Russia opposing repeal).
"More than 7.75 million comments – the largest percentage of any set of comments (36% of the total comments) – appear to have been generated by self-described “temporary” and “disposable” email domains attributed to FakeMailGenerator.com and with nearly identical language. Virtually all of those comments oppose repealing Title II. Assuming that comments submitted from these email domains are illegitimate, sentiment favors repeal of Title II (61% for, 38% against)."
"9.93 million comments were filed from submissions listing the same physical address and email, indicating that many entities filed multiple comments. This was more prevalent in comments against repeal of Title II (accounting for 82% of the total duplicates)"
After filtering out international IP's, fake emails and duplicates, the results were 61% in support of Repeal, 31% Against.
Funny, this contradicts both techdirt and WSJ. Glad somebody did the homework.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake News!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake News
FCC and FTC will monitor companies and if they start doing something wrong they get em. Good enough for me.
Don't fear something that hasn't happened yet.
Bunch of complaining people about something that will not happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News
If you'd looked at the sidebar, you'd have seen an article titled No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed. Perhaps you should read it.
Leaving aside that that's a very stupid statement (waiting until after a thing happens to be afraid of it is a pretty poor way to avoid bad things happening -- "Hm, I'm standing on these railroad tracks and there's a train coming, but I'm not afraid of being hit by it, because it hasn't happened yet!"), we're not afraid of something that hasn't happened yet, we're afraid of something that has happened, repeatedly.
This list from freepress.net has been making the rounds; here it is again:
Now go hang out on some railroad tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake News
Blocking of Bittorrent and such was at the time in no small part a network congestion issue. At peak, torrent was well over 50% of the traffic on a network, and people seeding and such was driving up network congestion to a point that other customers were getting slow service. Throttling or even outrightly blocking what was causing massive network congestion shouldn't be an issue. Even under NN rules, it could have been done.
You also list Canadian and European ISPs.
Blocking 4G video on wireless networks is also very much a network congestion management thing. 2011 is a long time ago when it comes to wireless development, people pushing video over the network at that point were literally killing regular network availability for everyone else. Good network management says deal with the issue. This will be a recurring theme going forward, wireless has limits.
" “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”"
In a free and open market, companies looking to innovate do exactly that. Your paragraph, more than anything, explains why Net Neutrality wasn't good for consumers in all ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fake News
That was the excuse they used, sure. Plenty of evidence to suggest they were just being pressured by their content-owning arms to "do something", though.
"At peak, torrent was well over 50% of the traffic on a network"
As Netflix often is right now. Hmmm... you just supported removing blocks on them doing the same thing to them, didn't you?
"driving up network congestion to a point that other customers were getting slow service"
Again, that was the excuse used, but there's plenty of evidence that what really happened is that their lack of investment caught up with them and they were surprised by the first widespread popular use of the bandwidth they advertised was available. That usage is only going to go up, and they've been forced to invest by traffic that they can't block or shape eith the same excuses - until now.
You really do swallow corporation excuses whole, while picking apart even the simplest real life explanation by others, don't you?
"In a free and open market, companies looking to innovate do exactly that"
Shame you have no such thing in the US, then, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News
This is an issue that is (or at least should be) bipartisan. I'm sorry you got fooled by the propaganda telling you otherwise. Let me guess - you get all your news from corporations who benefit directly from NN being removed?
"FCC and FTC will monitor companies"
Would that be the same FCC who just handed control of the internet over to those corporations, and the same FTC whose leadership say they won't be able to do much about it? Yeah...
"Don't fear something that hasn't happened yet"
Newflash - the things that concerned people *already happened*, Title II and NN rules were the reaction to stop those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind the severely oversubscribed plant they were trying to keep afloat. More bandwidth was readily available and you can't say that High Speed ISPs weren't making enough profit.
"At peak, torrent was well over 50% of the traffic on a network"
I'd like to see your source for that info. I've worked on the backend for high speed ISPs for the last 20+ years (well, started out with Prodigy Classic (dialup-not HSD), then Prodigy internet (dialup), then Charter Cable Modem, and onto FTTU where I am now). The point being, it was gross oversubscription that was causing the peak hour congestion. Overly optimistic "guestimates" as to how much bandwidth would be used. We ran an entire city with standard 3mbps cable modem service on a 45mbps pipe....for MONTHS! You do the math. So to keep from looking ridiculous, they took a common enemy (the dirty pirates) and blamed it all on them. Show me proof of your 50% claim and I'll listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of Course They Were Fake. Why Has It Never Occurred To You, Or Anyone Else For That Matter....That GOOGLE Is The Driving Force Behind The Liberal Deep-State???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake News
Of Course They Were Fake. Why Has It Never Occurred To You, Or Anyone Else For That Matter....That GOOGLE Is The Driving Force Behind The Liberal Deep-State???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Neutrality
I could believe that those pro-repeal comments are faked, but I'm not convinced that they're necessarily impersonating me; I'd think it would be at least as likely that at least one of these people really did/does exist with that name at that address, and that it is that person whose identity was fraudulently used to post the comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]