Fake Comments Are Plaguing Government Agencies And Nobody Much Seems To Care
from the disinformation-nation dept
You might recall that when the FCC repealed net neutrality, the agency's open comment period (the only opportunity the public had to voice their concerns) was plagued with all manner of bogus comments and identity fraud. From bots that lifted the identities of dead people to create fake enthusiasm, to the hijacking of legitimate identities (like Senators Jeff Merkley and Pat Toomey, or my own) to forge bogus support. The FCC not only refused to do anything about it, it actively blocked law enforcement efforts to do so. The agency told me there was nothing they could do when my own identity was lifted in this fashion.
A year later and a few brave journalists are still trying to find the culprit. Who benefited should be obvious. Who they paid to do the dirty work, less so.
And while the fake net neutrality comments got the lion's share of public and media attention, the reality is this is a problem that's been plaguing government proceedings for years. For example, new information obtained via FOIA request highlights how the NFL was involved in sending fake fan comments to the FCC as early as 2014 as the league tried to fight FCC efforts to eliminate the so-called "black out rule," which requires that broadcasters black out certain game broadcasts if real-world attendance doesn't meet the league's liking. It didn't work because the rule was so monumentally stupid, but nobody really seemed to much care about tracking down those responsible:
"The letters began “I write as a football fan” and requested that the rule remain because, without it, premium television channels could start charging higher fees to broadcast games. The WSJ identified and interviewed fans whose names were used in the letters and were angry to be used as spokespeople for a cause they didn’t believe in."
Sounds familiar. The same problem was recently found to have plagued a proceeding at the Labor Department, where numerous people who either don't exist or don't recall ever sending messages breathlessly opposed agency efforts to prevent conflicts of interest in retirement advice. The same problem plagued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when it proposed a rule trying to rein in some of the nastier habits of the payday lending industry. Nobody appears to have shown much interest in getting to the bottom of gamesmanship in either of those instances, either.
And last week, information obtained via FOIA request found that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the primary bank regulator for nationally chartered banks, was inundated with bogus support for a 2015 merger between OneWest Bank and CIT Bank. A smattering of identity theft and fraud the regulatory agency was aware of and likely involved one of the companies involved, but resulted in no meaningful inquiries or punishment whatsoever:
"The documents reviewed by The Intercept show that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the main bank regulator for nationally chartered banks, knew about the fake comments at the time, before it approved the merger. But the OCC appears to have done no meaningful investigation of the matter, and even cited public support for the merger when approving it."
The problem's become a bit of an epidemic, but despite the fact that this kind of behavior pollutes the public discourse and undermines the democratic process, not much (read: mostly nothing) is being done about it. Given our obsession (perhaps justly) with Russian disinformation efforts, you'd think there'd be a little more concern that the only opportunity the public is often given to provide feedback on major policy decisions or mergers, are often corrupted by widespread efforts to generate industrialized, artificial enthusiasm.
While things like astroturf and bogus support for bad policy have been a mainstay for years, these fake comments are increasingly growing in scale, as offenders now utilize hackers who'll heavily lean on compromised databases as we saw in the net neutrality repeal. But much like we saw with the FCC, there's little to no willpower at most government agencies to actually track down the culprits and hold those who obviously benefit from the fraudulent behavior accountable. As a result, the already marginalized will of the public has been further reduced to a faint echo, drowned out by a chorus of farmed artificiality.
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: comments, comptroller, department of labor, fake comments, fcc, federal government, occ, public input
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake or Free Speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake or Free Speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Comments ?
Such regulators have no obligation to formally incorporate public comments into their decision process. Regulators are supposed to be independent and objective, free from political pressures and whims of public opinion. Regulators are already supposed to be the experts in their field -- do commercial airline pilots poll their passengers to get opinions on the best way to fly the aircraft?
This whole concept of public commenting is illogical, aside from the big, demonstrated problems of getting accurate measures of public opinions.
Of course, regulators are typically politicized and seek political cover for their decisions. The commenting process is merely a token facade to pacify the general public -- the actual effectiveness of that process are unimportant to the regulators.
But this entire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Comments ?
Because even though the regulatory body may be composed of experts, there's no possible way to be sure that the regulator won't miss noticing and/or thinking of something that's relevant enough to be taken into consideration, so it's valuable to make sure that other experts out in the general populace can contribute information the regulator may have missed.
While the regulator may not be under any obligation to take such input into account, if they don't solicit public comment, they won't be able to take the input into account (because it won't be provided).
Importantly, mere "I don't like or want this" opinions do not constitute information worth contributing; in theory, a regulator may be not merely permitted but actually required to ignore comments of that nature.
Also importantly, once a single comment has presented a given piece of information, additional comments presenting the same information (without new insights resulting from a different viewpoint) are of no further use in making sure that the regulator is fully informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake Comments are routine on Techdirt.
Ah, "Gary"! YOU are to stage of see / blame "Blue" for all!
Whew. What a nerd rage mania for ad hom attacks you kids get when can't adequately answer ON-TOPIC. Just out of the blue and in advance of any comment, you ATTACK -- misrepresenting position -- and especially to revile "common law" so a de facto royalist of some degree.
On other hand, I'm pleased that you point me up as most influential commenter here, the source of rage. I'm only an ordinary person who'd pass without notice on less rabid sites, so it's flattering.
But you've fully OUTED yourself as Techdirt fanboy, Probably always were, if not actual astro-turfing.
Let's look at your stats, "Gary", and see if that charge can be supported:
When at 154 comments, you were averaging 40 a year since 24 Aug 2015. Now at 322, you've more than doubled that rate to 105! -- In fact, an average is highly misleading: "you" made THREE comments in 2015, FIVE in 2016, THREE up to June of 2017 for an "average" of only FIVE per year first two years! So that you've made over 300 in the last 15 months is ODD, just like MOST "accounts" at Techdirt!
By the way, "Gary", since the "out_of_the_blue" screen name hasn't been used since 2014, how is it you're so familiar with "Blue"? (As Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet" began using.)
One more point: your user name is "darkflite". Huh, similar to "Dark Helmet". Another amazing coincidence.
And I bet your OFF-TOPIC UNPROMPTED AD HOM ATTACK won't be "hidden", more evidence that "you" are an "Insider".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake Trolls are routine
You attack any form of moderation - I'm pointing this out. I'm sorry if you feel this is an attack on your character but it is an attack on your behavior.
You have literally made up your own fantasy version of the US legal system and named it "Common Law" and constantly bring it up. I presume it is shorthand for some sort of alt-right code but you have never explained it (except some ramble about "For the people, see? You fools!)
Glad to know I have gotten your attention. I have been a long time reader at the site, and I've worked in IT for years. Your attacks on all form for content moderation are *laughable* because I've seen what unmoderated posting boards look like.
You have a high standard that you hold Mike to - but hypocritically refuse to adhere to the same standards yourself.
Saying "You live in your parents basement" is an ad hominem attack. Calling you a troll and a hypocrite is just my humble opinion based on your behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Comments at all ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hold those who obviously benefit from the fraudulent behavior accountable
No. Just... no. That turns the whole thing into a giant game of poker, and it seems pretty clear that the government will be the worst player at the table. If you can't beat them, submit a bunch of fake comments supporting their side and let the government beat them for you. Hold those who actually arranged it accountable, but if you actually believe that the people who benefit are both obvious, and will have arranged it themselves... well, that'll continue to be true right up until it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you mean Nobody seems to care?
The other beauty of fake comments is that when they don't support a favorite policy, the comments can be pointed out as being fake -- even if they're real. Simply because of the volume of fake comments. Everybody wins. (Except for the public.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you talk to climate change deniers enough you realize they are afraid of the consequences of climate change so they accept the easy lie to escape the truth.
Religious people are always fearful of some combination nonexistence or pointlessness of life.
The way to really combat people believing in lies is to educate people in recognizing lies. To dig in and find real evidence to base beliefs on and ACCEPT it's OK and natural to be wrong. Don't base your personal identify on whatever random political body exists out there or anything else that isn't strictly PERSONAL. IE, Believe in abortion (or not) but don't believe in a political group that merely claims to support your stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fake comments
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fake comments
Ha ha ha slanted view much?
Except that they weren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fake comments
How is a statement of fact slanted? What are or are not better is up to the reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fake comments
That depends on what the comment is, what it's about and what value it adds to the discussion. It's valid if it's a sincerely held opinion from the individual posting it but when you get a load of gaslighting and astroturfing to generate pretend support for a policy that is ultimately harmful to the public, that's a problem. And that's the problem with fake comments.
Okay, assume you're generating mass comments to push a proposal that benefits the public. What you're actually doing is pushing a line that you think benefits the public; their voices aren't actually heard, it's just you pretending to be them. Again, this lacks value except as an astro-turfing / gaslighting ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fake comments
Unless YOU don't like the opinion, as you snark about "Blue" in reply to the "Gary" astro-turfing above. Sheesh.
It's not unusual here to see screen names directly contradict themselves on one page, because goal of fanboys is only cheap ad hom shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fake Trolls!
Or Blue is lying. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fake Trolls!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake Trolls!
Although I really wonder who he thinks I'm shilling for. I pretty much just snipe at the extremists that scream for absolute copyright/freedom on both sides.
If that could get me a gig as a paid spokesperson I'd like to sign up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fake comments
Why are you still here Blue?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180922/11374040692/this-week-techdirt-history-september-16 th-22nd.shtml#c164
Oh wait, now I remember, it's because you are a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
No, you were TRICKED by my clever wording, that's all I'm guilty of. Read all this time. I didn't promise to LEAVE Techdirt, just not darken Masnick's site, and then I went on to delineate his is the intro / topic but that he cedes the Comments section to The Public, which is premise of my piece.
But again, over-estimated comprehension here.
In larger answer, I'm here because FUN. I watch Techdirt attenuate but it's Masnick that is is too stubborn to go away. -- He has NOTHING beyond this site to stroke his self-esteem. His accuracy on court cases since Napster is less 5%. He's a delightful reminder of last century. Hoots never stop.
Hey, why are you NOT here much? Site lost interest for you since piracy / Masnick's notions are obviously failing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
To save you trouble, besides show any possible unbiased readers, here's the text I wrote. Read the part in BOLD:
Now, you FELL FOR MY TRICK EVEN THOUGH I STATED CONDITIONS CLEARLY AND IMMEDIATELY. -- I'm being generous in calling it a "trick": just played you cloowns because I KNOW how you'll react. You didn't make it past the dash, is the cuase. You were SO excited at prospect, as I predicted, that just stopped comprehending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
Darken away, you sad lunatic. Sesta votes will come your way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
No Blue, you actually tricked yourself.
Your first sentence contains the terms of the agreement:
Mike did EXACTLY what your terms required - he refuted your "Summary to here" completely.
Nothing in your second sentence (which you highlighted for some reason) changed the terms of your challenge, it is just some incorrect notion you asserted.
If you ask my opinion, every comment you make darkens this site.
So, in the immortal words of Gene Wilder - "You lose. You get nothing. Good day, sir!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
I find it funny that his attempt at weaseling out of his promise is that he apparently expected Mike to write an article refuting his points, rather that just leave a comment doing so, as though there's any real difference between the two and/or that they are worth being taken that seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
Not like that was a surprise to anyone who's been here long enough, though it was nice of them to demonstrate their gross dishonesty(again) in such a blatant, easy to link to fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fake comments
Unless YOU don't like the opinion, as you snark about "Blue" in reply to the "Gary" astro-turfing above. Sheesh.
There are plenty of valid opinions that I've disagreed with without being called out for trolling, etc. That's because I don't lash out at people I disagree with, even when I feel strongly about my own dissenting opinion. I state my case, give my reasons why, and leave it at that until I'm either contradicted again or the other party leaves it. When I'm wrong, as I occasionally am, I admit it.
It's not unusual here to see screen names directly contradict themselves on one page, because goal of fanboys is only cheap ad hom shots.
You're projecting so much you should work at a cinema.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many citizens are in the bubble of the Government wouldn't lie to them and they take what we say & want seriously... they are also very high.
It's cheaper than "donations" to buy support for programs that harm citizens & can be engaged against legislators. The media can report on all of faked comments & there is already a cheerleading section ready to claim it is fake news just because the news said it.
The entire system is regularly gamed to the detriment of citizens & there is no will to fix it, b/c they exist only to get reelected not help us.
It's been shown that astroturfing works be it fake groups or companies buying the letterhead of a minority group to send in fake support messages.
Everyone is getting paid, we're getting screwed.
Perhaps we need to be honest that our government has been bought & paid for, that we've let them change the rules so only they win at the end of the day.
Corporations aren't people, Dark money is not good, and we deserve to know why we keep getting the shaft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if there's no one or nothing you want to vote for, there's bound to be something or someone you want to vote against.
Not voting is a futile protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nations get the governments they deserve as a collective responsibility and concept and totally true.
Saying that no voting is the same is specious and malicious. What if your only choice was poison or fire? Do you deserve either because you elected neither?
While some people may have individual responsibility, they do not have THAT form of culpability. The deserving is a "collective" scope NOT and individual scope!
Hench the "Every nation gets the government it deserves" and NOT "Every citizen gets the government they deserve"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
even though they have little latitude given the present circumstances, it is their fault for being born into poverty with the wrong color skin or the wrong sex.
Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did - LOL, no you didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think people are forgetting that we should only have government do what is necessary instead of every little thing we want to piss and moan about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you have any examples? Like:
1) looking the other way wrt sexual assault
2) appointing a judge to rule in your favor no matter what
3) .... the list is endless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They care only for themselves - obviously. Some still attempt the old whitewash PR facade but lately they have given up on that even - just out in the open blatant corruption, crime and villainy.
We will see if this illegitimate government can be saved, hopefully people vote and their votes count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well hell Mel, why on earth would government or business complain about or seek punishment for anything that "always" pushes and supports the exact agenda that government and business desires.
Now, were these fakes designed to oppose a government or business agenda, then you'd see some serious investigation followed by some very serious punishment for the culprits once caught - and caught they would be.
Its almost as if government and business were the actual culprits behind the process, or at least, the employers and directors of those running the scam.... but of course, that would never happen, right, cuz, as we all know, governments and businesses are simply too honest to use such underhanded techniques to "marginalize the will of the public."
That would be un-American. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is class warfare and it is on steroidal overdrive. Not sure what the wealthy are afraid of .. what have they done this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not a fake comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]