Great post! I saw a few posts using different names posting that same copypasta. Let's get this to the top!

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

Is this Addams or Pratchett?

I've never seen this written, I've only heard the audio from early 2000s comedy websites. I don't know of the origin but now that you mention it, either of these is plausibly.

This is transcribed from an Air Force training video on the topic of missile guidance.

Source

This issue was actually at the top of r/all a few days ago. I think it was posted in r/technology.

Roflmao, hilariously obvious, that last sentence especially.

Anyone have information about how to proceed after finding a fraudulent post in your or a family member's name?

I know you're probably being sarcastic, but I'm not sure anything like that would hold up. IIRC, courts in the past have sided with consumers that the contents of a ToS agreement have to be reasonably assumed. So things like the Human Centipad episode of South Park could never actually happen even if you unwittingly agreed to it.

"John Doe" has the same result.

LOL soooooo many buzzwords

Apparently my brother sent in this same petition and my father as well. My dad doesn't even have a computer much less care about net neutrality.

I think anyone in this situation should start contacting lawyers

Corporate identity theft?

Seriously. Someone, somewhere, most likely at request and on the clock, signed the names of other citizens falsely in an effort to subvert a democratic process.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm rather sure this is many kinds of illegal. Let's get to the bottom of who ordered this and charge them with a crime. This is only only step bellow falsely registering and then voting with someone else's info.

Write your Senators. Everyone should. They might ignore, but the more people write them, the harder it is to ignore.

Did a search with my common name too and found that exact same copy pasta with my name on it from all over.

But the thing is it's incredibly obvious. I searched my own name and found dozens of the same results. Obviously the FCC is not completely stupid. They're going to see these thousands of duplicate bot entries. What is the real intention of this? It seems more like advertising ...

And finally a real question. What is this? It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

how is this shit legal? I just searched my name and saw this same exact comment made by three different people living in different states. granted none of them are my address but still, this type of shit is wrong.

If this is allowed, can't someone create a bot program to post the same point on reasons to keep net neutrality? "If they can do it, so can we" essentially.

It seems like the public is going to have to stoop to the level of the corporations to counter what Comcast and the likes are doing.

Honestly, it wouldn't even be that hard. I could write a naive approach in an hour.

how is this shit legal?

Because you aren't revolting.

So I did this and searched my name and it came back with one result.
"Great, it's just mine."
Nope, it's that same fucking script! And where the fuck did mine go??

I'm not American,tried a random name "mark James" and sure enough that same copypasta.

Wtfff

And this is why online petitions rarely earn more than lip service. People manipulating these is more of an established fact than a conspiracy, whether it's on a government website or a Canada's hottest dog poll.

Established facts can also be conspiracies.

They can also be pedantry. :P

Not trying to be, just saying... you did make that comparison though.

I know, just trying to make a joke. When being pedantic someone is being correct (using established facts).

Doh!

I took my son to the padantic just yesterday.

Can they? If something is established it's hardly a "secret." Conspiracies can be facts, but idk about "established facts."

People manipulating these is more of an established fact than a conspiracy

At least on the internet people know what their signing. In real life, people just walk around with clipboards and get whoever is walking by to sign it

I participated in an industry conference regarding some upcoming changes to the regulatory landscape of the financial services industry.

They were soliciting members of the industry for thoughts on some upcoming changes and they basically told us outright that they were ignoring form letters sent in.

They said they got hundreds of identical letters from clients of a certain law firm that was hired to flood them, but what they wanted was actual feedback on how to make the regulations better. They basically just ignored all of these forms.

From what I've read, the FCC is using these comments for actual criticism and reasons from consumers why net neutrality is good or bad for them. Just like the solicitation you're talking about.

They said that the number of comments doesn't matter, the content does. Sending in multiple copies of the same thing hopefully won't matter, because this isn't a vote. It's a public comment opportunity.

They said that the number of comments doesn't matter, the content does. Sending in multiple copies of the same thing hopefully won't matter, because this isn't a vote. It's a public comment opportunity.

Bingo, that's the right way to do it.

Yeah it's pointless, especially when everyone already knows my dog is the hottest

Aaand there it is. Thank you.

So this is to discredit online petitions, rendering them useless, now that they'll have "well don't you remember when Comcast spammed so and so" any time a good petition makes it to them. Sometimes it's easier to learn this way. I bet that is frustrating! :D

... I've been searching also.. can confirm "Robert Harris" etc.. 4-5 different names all atleast 2-3 entries.. all the same copy paste.

.. attempted to search the same names via internet explorer showed #noresults.. Can anyone else confirm?

So, if true, does that mean Comcast has violated a particular federal regulation?...
(Not that any government official would ever want to enforce a regulation against a big money corporation -- those regs are just meant to crush small businesses and individual taxpayers whenever necessary.)

even if the turd that is comcast did not, we need to raise governmejt awareness to this gross moral injustice. Maybe we oughta take com cast's lead and smear the sit out of them with fake statistics and fake com cast customer stories that are ten times worse than what customers experience today. These fucking traitorous companies oughta go the way of the dodo. quick

I just did an image search, the Nazi flag no longer shows up for comcast. Perhaps it's time Reddit does it again? Just to start things off at least.

I like this

At best it's a variation of identity theft or forgery signing someone else's name on a letter like that.

This is terrific research. Thanks for putting in the time.

/pol/ did the research.

These comments have been up for two weeks

and they were discovered and reported 2 weeks ago.

This has been posted about in multiple subs for the last week at least. /pol/ might have been too busy with their Seth Rich marathon to notice until now

Now this is what I come here for, nice work.

Comcast is a shit company.

But Title II Net Neutrality is open censorship of freedom of speech on the internet.

The government applied Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to ISPs in order to achieve "Net Neutrality"

https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Read Section 223 (under Title II, just ctrl+F 223)

(a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

...

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

If you don't believe me, please, read it for yourself.

The FCC under Obama applied obscenity laws to the internet by applying Title II to ISPs.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Timeline_of_significant_events

February 26, 2015 - FCC passes the Title II Net Neutrality Rules. “In a 3-2 party-line vote, the FCC passes open internet rules applying to both wired and wireless internet connections grounded in Title II authority.”

Net Neutrality is important, but we can never sacrifice our First Amendment rights on the altar of Net Neutrality.

There are better ways to go about Net Neutrality than Title II.

Comcast is a shit company, nobody is going to argue with you there. That doesn't mean we should blindly accept Title II Net Neutrality in America.

Read Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934.

I am more than happy to answer any questions anyone may have. My posts are about informing you, the reader, about Title II and why you should be concerned about being goaded into defending it under the guise of "Net Neutrality."

I'm honestly not sure why NN is on such a pedestal for Americans. The real problem is your ISPs are in bed with the government. Getting them on their own two feet is more important imo

True but we might as well fight for what's currently going on, the vote is in August but ISPs will be around for quite awhile

While title ll is not the perfect dream that NN should be and what most think it to be, isn't it still better than what will happen without it? If it can be repealed now wouldn't it be possible/better for everyone to keep it and alter it later(if that ever becomes a possibility)

While title ll is not the perfect dream that NN should be and what most think it to be, isn't it still better than what will happen without it?

That would be a matter of opinion, but I will say that in general there is literally no law or policy that is more important to life in civil society than Freedom of Speech.

A lot of people seem to think that Net Neutrality is a very important law. I'm sure there are very good reasons for it, and have no problem with the concept of Net Neutrality.

But what we're talking about here is the government applying censorship laws to the internet under the guise of "Net Neutrality." You can't allow these fuckers to just do whatever the fuck they want, in backroom deals and regulations by unelected bureaucrats, and call it "Net Neutrality." Just because they tell you something is good for you, doesn't mean it's good for you.

I have provided clear evidence that FCC's Title II regulations will force censorship laws onto the internet. We can argue the merits of Net Neutrality all day, but that's really not my point here - my point is that Title II is a direct threat to Freedom of Speech on the internet.

Bargaining with your First Amendment rights is a dangerous road to go down, no matter the reward.

If this title ll is currently on its way to be repealed than these obsceneity censorship rules are currently in place, yes?

I'm asking because I personally have not noticed any type of censorship in my browsings, and I like to think I look at some obscene shit from time to time

Yes, Title II for ISPs has been in place since February, 2015.

I'm asking because I personally have not noticed any type of censorship in my browsings

Can you clarify the point you are trying to make here??

Sorry let me try to re word that.

You're saying that title ll is censoring some material? What exactly is it censoring? I have not noticed anything in my web browsing to lead me to believe that was ever a factor, but I've never read the fine print of title ll before.

At the same time I guess I can't tell what I'm not seeing

I see - thanks.

I am talking about the threat of censorship, independent of whether censorship has actually occurred. I am not aware of any lawsuits pertaining to Title II as it relates to the internet - at least, not yet.

The larger point is that the door has been opened to obscenity lawsuits on the internet. If someone wanted to fuck you, they could go through your post history with a fine-toothed comb and pull comments that could reasonably be construed as "harassing" or "obscene" to file suit against you, costing you time, money, and smearing your name (even if you're not convicted.)

That's the danger here, the chilling effect, the door being opened to speech lawsuits over obscenity online.

I see what you're getting at now, I thought you originally meant that it was already happening. Thank you for posting about it

Also you're being down voted but I don't see anybody disagreeing with you. cough

Haha, yes. Which is odd, because all I'm really trying to do is get the word out so people can make up their minds.

I think we all already knew that Comcast is a shitty company, and that online petitions are rife with fraudulent signatures. Not many people know about Section 223, though (wonder why that is?)

Probably because I'm like many most 'ignorant Americans' who don't read the fine print into large bills such as this. You should try making this it's own discussion submission to gain more attention

That is specifically about harassment, it's not about 1st amendment at all. This sort of speech is already criminalized. If I go start yelling obscenities at someone in public I could also be arrested. Maybe you're against all such laws, but this isn't anything special and you haven't provided any evidence that this has been used to silence free speech. There are still openly white nationalist and neo-nazi sites online, so what sort of speech do you think this regulation has curtailed?

This sort of speech is already criminalized.

No, that's not true.

There are no obscenity laws that apply to ISPs, other than Title II. If there are, find them.

so what sort of speech do you think this regulation has curtailed?

Read the law:

initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

Title II literally makes "lewd comments" punishable by a $50,000 fine and 2 years in jail. Title II literally makes "indecent images" punishable by the same.

I'm not sure what laws you're referring to, the ones that make "lewd" comments and "annoying" speech criminal behavior on the internet.

If you could please cite a single source to back up your claims?

Keep in mind, this goes way beyond slander/harassment, which have been illegal, in all forms of communication, since forever. That's not what we're talking about here.

Title II explicitly makes offensive language illegal online. Not threatening, not slandering. Offensive. If there are other laws which do the same, please show me. Otherwise I'm going to assume you are misinformed.

There are still openly white nationalist and neo-nazi sites online, so what sort of speech do you think this regulation has curtailed?

It's about the threat of litigation. It opens you up to lawsuits. If an unscrupulous lawyer wants to fuck you, they could parse through your comment history and find "lewd" or "annoying" comments, and drag your ass through the mud with them in court, citing Title II.

with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

You just completely gloss over the second half of that sentence to suggest that this criminalizes all obscene content. So far as I can tell your reading of the law is completely wrong, since it would criminalize porn, and nobody is suggesting that's the case.

Hold on a second - I asked you to provide a source that, as you say, "This sort of speech is already criminalized."

Before we parse through this tactic, I'd like you to back up your claims with some evidence. Before we get into why "intent to annoy" is impossibly vague and opens the end user up to frivolous lawsuits, I'd like you to establish some credibility here...

You made an unsupported claim, that "This sort of speech is already criminalized." It seems to me like you just pulled that out of thin air - I think it would do you some good to other people reading this to cite some sources and establish your credibility.

Wait, you think that I need to support the claim that it's already illegal to shout obscenities at someone in public with intent to harass them? I didn't realize you were so completely ignorant of the law.

My favorite with regards to public harassment is probably "fighting words", which is a case of restricted speech whereby language is intended to provoke a verbal or physical confrontation.

More applicable are street harassment laws, in which it is criminal to shout lewd or obscene comments at people on the street.

There's a whole history of obscenity laws. At one point pornography itself was strictly illegal, I don't think it's worth the time to go find laws pertaining to the intentional showing of pornographic material to another individual with intent to annoy, harass, or disturb that person, but guaranteed you will get arrested and probably prosecuted if you try it.

There's also a slew of anti -bullying laws.

Now, I think you're right that obscenities and harassment shouldn't have been mixed in Title II, but I think your understanding of the law is sorely lacking. Maybe you don't go outside much and that's why you're surprised that it's illegal to shout obscenities or lewd language at someone with intent to annoy.

Let's try this again:

This law isn't about just "harassment," which you correctly point out is already illegal.

It says, I'll quote it a third time:

initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

Ok, since we're having reading comprehension problems here, I bolded it. Notice the "OR" there before "harass." We're talking about more than "harassment." It says "intended to annoy," As in, if you use obscenity in speech that can be construed as annoying, you are committing a felony punishable by up to 2 years in jail. It doesn't just say harassment, it goes well beyond that.

You correctly point out that in the past this law has been used to censor pornographic material (phone sex companies.) Let's ignore the fact that it also says "annoying" speech is illegal - is that not enough of a problem already? In other words, how comfortable are you that a law which has been used to censor pornographic material in the past would make its way to the internet?

You're the one insisting that this is going to force broad censorship on the web, which is patently false, and now you're again demonstrating your ignorance of how the law works. You just flipped

intended to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass

and changed it into this:

can be construed as annoying

The law doesn't work like that. You are clearly twisting words around, and your original post doesn't even acknowledge the annoy/harass part of the law, and instead you insisted that this criminalized all lewd or obscene language.

Only one of us is having reading comprehension problems. You're still insisting that this goes far beyond harassment without any evidence or proof that anything of that nature has occurred.

"Intended to annoy" is unimaginably vague. In an actual court of law, the Prosecution would need to establish that the Defendant intended to annoy the Plaintiff. What kind of speech would they look for in constructing their case?

Well, language that can be construed as annoying, of course. You establish intent by finding language that can be construed as establishing said intent.

This comment thread ceased being productive several replies back. The law is very, very clear as to what kinds of speech is verboten. I will link it again:

(a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

...

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

...

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

On a fundamental level, your entire argument is intellectually dishonest, as you seem to be saying that only harassment is outlawed by this when it is very obviously not what the law says.

I asked you to provide a source that, as you say, other laws prior to Title II have made obscenity illegal online. You did not provide any sources, because there aren't any laws other than Title II that outlaw obscenity on the internet.

And now you want to play word games and misconstrue the meaning of the law, which is actually not very difficult to understand at all.

They'd have to prove intent).

A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intent can also come from the common law viewpoint as well.

It's a very complicated legal subject that you clearly don't understand.

I said lewd or obscene speech used with intent to harass was generally illegal and gave examples of it happening in public, then provided sources that linked to a bunch of state laws saying it was illegal in public or in workplaces. I never said it was illegal online, although there are of course various cyber-bullying laws coming into force.

And, you keep cutting off the rest of the sentence:

with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

You're the one that keeps cutting clauses in half with the intent to show that Title II criminalizes online pornography or free speech in general or whatever it is you're trying to prove, since you keep dodging the question and refusing to say precisely what types of speech you think are being curtailed.

This is such an absurd reading of the law! It specifically calls out lewd or obscene content intended to annoy or harass, not any annoying speech.

So instead of just outlawing "obscene" speech, the prosecution has to prove I was trying to "annoy" someone. I understand that.

I saw you originally posted the full language of the section of the law, but you probably deleted it when you realized it was a federal law targeting interstate harassment and abuse and that it doesn't support your argument.

The prosecution has to prove intent to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten. Clinton was let off because they couldn't prove intent (according to Comey's recommendation). Intent is crucial in determining which murder laws apply.

So, this entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of the law. First you completely ignored the intent clause, then you separated the two to suggest that annoying content itself could be criminalized, you still act like any random forum post or website can be prosecuted when the law is clearly designed to stop targeted harassment. There is no way a reasonable person can read that entire section and conclude that it generally restricts lewd or obscene content.

Speech which contains obscenity that is intended to annoy is criminalized under Title II - yes or no?

That wasn't your original claim at all.

And yes, obscene or lewd content that is sent with the intent to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten is criminalized. You can't just cut out half a sentence clause in a law and then base your understanding on that. Given your previous mistakes, you'll have to excuse me if I don't think your interpretation of the law is worth much.

My original claim was that Title II applies obscenity laws to the internet.

You just agreed with me.

Thanks.

I did not just say that obscenity laws are applied to the internet. Obscenity laws don't require intent to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten. Since your brain seems incapable of holding two separate clauses together at the same time, you can just come away with this understanding that I do not agree with your claim that Title II applies obscenity laws to the internet, that you have not proven this to be the case, and that your entire argument hinged on ignoring the second (and crucial) clause which specifically requires intent to harass.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. That explains why you keep making these fallacious claims and get downvoted in top level threads when you do so.

kk

At this point it's clear you're either willfully ignorant or malicious. The best part is that, according to you, online porn sites are criminal!

This is such a ridiculous reading of the law that it can be trivially ignored as that which is asserted without evidence.

Newsflash: when lawmakers try to criminalize porn (like they've tried in Britain) it makes international headlines.

The best part is that, if net neutrality goes away, there's nothing to stop telecoms from filtering out sites they don't want to pay for (like porn sites) or charging customers more to access those sites.

Astroturfing, indeed.

lol

You:

My original claim was that Title II applies obscenity laws to the internet.

There is so much stupid in your posts it hurts. And you wonder why people downvote you.

*FCC's reinterpretation of Title II applies obscenity laws to the internet.

Do you think obscenity laws are applied to the internet? Yes or no.

Moreover, criminal law is interpreted by the courts. Once again you are just proving how completely ignorant you are when it comes to law.

The US will go to war before they tell us how to think!

The FCC will take these fake comments as "overwhelming consumer support for the repeal of Net Neutrality". I can see the goddamned statement from Pai in my minds eye right now.

Makes you wonder, what else is this used for that we don't know about?

Yeah, if anything this gets me wondering if Comcast likes filling out voter registration forms for people as well.

Perhaps that's how we got Trump. It wasn't the Russians after all. Just Comcast.

What does it matter if nobody is going to stop them?

This aggression will not stand, man!

I smell a class action law suit. I bet if the logs are subpoena from the fcc, they will claim they weren't saved.

This is bs. These companies should all be outlawed. Their corporate charters should be revolked.

nice find

Who cares, so called "net neutrality" has to go!

now this is a conspiracy and

Finally something all us can get behind.

this website is great. I checked under the name for my comcast account, and i was all ready to get pissed when 3 results came back, but they were different people. But the content for the letters was all the same. This is the shadiest fucking thing Ive ever seen a corporation do, and so publicly. There NEEDS to be serious ramifications for this. Break this company up

Are Comcast actually doing this, what's the evidence it is them? There have got to be more parties against it or very determined trolls.

It could be anyone using information from a data breach, and not necessarily data from Comcast.

They probably sell their lists to conservative think tanks like Heritage Foundation who write all the party talking points & letters like above. That's who pushes everything the Republican party supports.

If you want there to be serious rammifications, then contact your police department, the FBI, and your representative.

Seriously, don't roll over and bitch. Do something about it.

If you found any John Big Butte' , John Ya Ya , or John Smallberries you will probably find them in Jersey.

Buckaroo Banzai reference, nailed it!

Check out the comment to upvote ratio on this post.

Does it seem odd to anyone else or is that just me?

Most people on reddit favor net neutrality. The alternative is to buy the bullshit being sold by the telecoms, that they are going to use their unrestricted powers for good to bring us better service somehow. It's never clear how exactly that would work because it's always just a bunch of free-market nonsense.

We know what happened when Telecoms were unrestricted. They formed one giant monopoly and fucked the American consumer as long and hard as they could. Now Ma Bell has been putting itself back together again while taking over the internet at the same time.

All net neutrality says is that companies have to treat all customers the same. They can have tiered service, but they can't charge Netflix more for a service tier than they can charge some other company. It's not clear why giving the massively powerful telecom companies the power to selectively screw over any company they don't like is going to make things better.

Thank you, but I'm not really sure how anything you said pertains to my comment.

It strikes me as odd that these threads quickly get upvote counts in the thousands, with very little commentary. I understand Reddit is in favor of Net Neutrality in general, but it still strikes me as odd (look at the other threads on the front page, none of them have anywhere near the upvotes these have and most of them have way more discussion than this thread.)

It looks like astroturf, is what I'm saying. It looks like astroturf.

And considering the obscenity regulations in the FCC's version of "Net Neutrality," it makes me worried there's something else at play here than just "well, reddit really likes Net Neutrality." That's all.

The majority of people on Reddit are just lurkers. It's not surprising a post would have 100x the upvotes than comments.

Compare that ratio to literally every single other thread on the front page, though. It is an aberration.

It's the least controversial topic in /r/conspiracy right now. We know that there's a concerted effort by telecoms to get rid of net neutrality. Comcast appears to literally be astroturfing the FCC petition site using customer data to spam comments, which is what this post is about.

So, you're suggesting that there's a counter-astroturf movement spamming /r/conspiracy to fight against the telecoms? Who would be behind it? Maybe Google or Netflix. I'm not saying it's not possible, but there aren't that many big money players that have come out for net neutrality. It could also be vote spamming by a few motivated individuals who don't like the telecoms.

It comes down to people that are fine with Corporate control or fine with government control. Currently this sub is leaning away from government control and towards corporate. Reddit in general is leaning towards government control. These are pretty broad generalizations but it's just my interpretation.

Personally I'm not convinced either is better.

A lot of people view this like clean drinking water or regulated electric utilities. We know what happens if there are no government rules in place - corporations will pollute and fuck people over. This doesn't mean people literally want government-run internet, it just means that they want a set of rules for everyone to follow.

That's a fair interpretation on balance, but let me just say that corporations already censor content online.

Look at the comment section of /r/news after a terror attack for example.

Look at how Google manipulates its algos and "curates" its news.

Same for Facebook and Twatter.

Corporations exercise extreme amounts of control over what you are "allowed" to say online, already.

The last thing we need is obscenity laws applying to the internet also.

Internet service providers are subject to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 now - that's how the FCC passed "net neutrality."

Section 223 of that law regulates obscenity online. Title II has been used to censor pornography in the past (phone sex companies, before it applied to ISPs or the internet.)

Now, under the FCC's rules, the same obscenity laws apply to online speech and conduct.

In my opinion, the last thing we need is the government criminalizing obscenity online. Corporations are already fucking over the First Amendment openly online. And there is actually not a whole lot we can do about that, other than migrating to platforms that actually respect free speech.

When the government steps in with Title II, there's literally no place you can hide.

So in your opinion, is removal of government restriction actually better if it allows for more corporate control and censorship/manipulation? I guess what I'm saying is even though removal of government control might give more freedom from obscenity rules and other restrictions, it also allows corporations to step in even more which in turn removes free reign of the internet.

So in your opinion, is removal of government restriction actually better if it allows for more corporate control and censorship/manipulation?

My opinion is that obscenity laws have absolutely no place on a free and open internet.

I would also like to curtail Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit's ability to control speech online (I think Google is way overdue for some anti-trust laws.)

This isn't some kind of "either this or that" kind of proposition where either you allow corporations to fuck you, or the government. What we need to do is regulate the internet in such a way that it both respects freedom of speech and consumer protections.

The idea that we somehow need to apply Title II to ISPs to achieve Net Neutrality is a falsehood.

I'm opposed to any law that regulates obscenity on the internet.

I won't speculate - it just strikes me as odd, that the level of upvoting activity on /r/conspiracy seems to spike through the roof on just these two threads - and these two threads only - and seems to remain very low for pretty much everything else.

I remember someone saying that they searched for "John Doe" and Comcast did not disappoint.

I fucking hate Comcast so much. my mom is on that list with the same copy paste message..

Did you fill out your own comment??

A lot of online petitions have prewritten letters that signers attach their names to. These may be legit individuals.

This is true, we will never know honestly unless we get server logs with IP address. (From the site that collected them to seed to the FCC)

No "legit individual" wants to slow their internet to a screeching halt bad enough to go look up and sign a petition, much less this many.

BLAST this stuff out to every media outlet you can think of!

I don't believe there's a human alive who understands the issue who would go against it, outside of those who would profit from getting rid of it.

Not entirely true, though likely close. While I 100% support NN, and am rather disheartened by the FCCs vote, there is value to removing government​ regulations. I don't believe that outweighs the negatives in this case but I could see how maybe someone does.

That said I don't think there's enough "average dead people" ghost writing their copypasta to the FCC because they so strongly believe in deregulation.

Isn't this more common knowledgeable than a conspiracy?

Barry White at 106 Connie Young Rd, West Monroe, LA (nonexistent address on streetview) submitted this pasta too!

Searched my last name, Wilber, and came up with 20 petitions using the same exact format.

Goddamn obergrupenfuhrers

Ha! Look up Obama's comment if you want a real laugh.

Nice work, cj. Is there a way to report this?

How do we know comcast is doing this?

$5 says the scheme of false comment was cooked up by people in the FCC and the ISP's.

welcome to last week. this has been talked about a LOT since it was discovered last Tuesday, and there are even sites set up so you can see if your name was used and file a complaint about it.

That has been reported before, they did it a few hundred thousand times.

You won't hear me say this a lot, but this isn't a conspiracy. Post this everywhere.

If something is called a conspiracy to you, does that mean it's not true? The definition of a conspiracy is two or more individuals plotting something that the rest are not supposed to know about, or something along those lines. But if something IS A CONSPIRACY, that means it is real. And I will add that I very much hope that if something is labeled "A Conspiracy Theory," that you don't just automatically dismiss it.

This has been removed from frontpage already

My dad is on that list too.

Here's another common bot comment

Is it possible that someone could just copy/paste from their email? Also, I've performed a similar search, and there are no results...am I searching something incorrectly? FCC Search Link&sort=date_disseminated,DESC)

Where the hell have you been this has been all over the front page for months

And people on this sub will STILL defend Trump's stance on net neutrality. If this isn't tangible evidence of corporate manipulation, idk what is.

Do you have any actual proof it was Comcast? Or is this just like every other thread that has posted the exact same info based on a catchy website name?

So let's do the same thing. If everyone pro net neutrality posted dozens of petitions we'd outnumber corporations exponentially. Then if they complain all the petitions were spammed, they incriminate those fake anti net neutrality petitions.

Guys, you are wasting your time.

1. The government doesn't care about petitions
2. Astroturfing is extremely common in politics
3. Even if you are right, there are no repercussions for this
4. Net Neutrality is kind of a made up crisis

I just searched for the comments I made in support of net neutrality and my comments aren't found. I wonder if they are deleting comments that show legal cause to keep the Title II status as well as first amendment rights. I also had specific examples of local companies, hundreds of jobs, that wouldn't exist if not for net neutrality.

John Smith? Couldn't they have at least incorporated a random name generator

fuck this yank ISP gonna fuck it up for the whole world.

The particular language is from this site:

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/62-technology-and-telecom/3596-center-for-individual-freedom-mobilizes-americans-opposed-to-the-obama-administrations-title-ii-internet-power-grab-

The ones from comcastroturf.com were not necessarily FROM comcast, it just does the "search" function for you on the FCC site (disclaimer: comcast is shitty)

Awesome post.

I don't think anything will be done, but I sent both my senators a letter about this.

What troubles me about this is that I submitted a pro net neutrality comment to the FCC, & that doesn't come up. Does this only return the copy pasta anti-NN submissions?

What if it IS the FCC?

If you want actual analysis you can check this out:

http://netneutrality.computer/

I posted the earlier thread and someone found 3 family members in under 5 minutes.

Can't find a single "skeptic" in here who acknowledges that these are SO OBVIOUSLY FAKE that they are likely done by a troll or a pro net-neutrality party. Seriously, this community is full of chickens with their heads cut off.

Or maybe 90% of us sit here having fun speculating and people like you come in here with this picture of people trembling in their basements drawing lines on a chalkboard "connecting dots." this place is made for speculating and thinking off the cuff. But hey, if it makes you feel super smart to imagine us in a certain way then go right ahead,

hey now glenn beck draws on chalkboards we mostly all have jobs to go to... so there.

Okay, so you suck at speculating, not skepticism. My badz, yo

Peace meng.

I did not find my name, but upon searching just for my last name I see that MOST of the entires use the exact same text: "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration..."

Gross. Just gross.

Now is when all the flunkies who work for news organizations need to put on their civil duty caps and uncover some more of this crap.

I just did my part. I went to the comcastroturf site and searched for my name and everyone's I knew and then I wrote a message of my own to the FCC and sent it. Please everyone do the same.

What is this call them bullshit after submitting a comment? Did my comment go through or not? Is this another goddamn honeypot thing just collecting peoples names?

FYI - I tried to submit my own through the widget on that website, but it won't let me unless I also call and/or tweet. If I don't accept those options, the submission doesn't go through.

That said - GREAT JOB on finding a genuine conspiracy, and proving it with evidence!

who cares net neutrality is bad. If you don't understand this you are underinformed. It will destroy privacy and give government the power of censorship of the last free space with no limits left in the entire world.

Net neutrality is good but not in the way being proposed.

keeping the internet free would be good and available to all would be good and all the stuff people seem to think is in this bill they haven't actually read all 2000 plus pages , but the bill is all about government control censorship and reigning in free speech on the internet while stopping filesharing and putting regular people in jail for using the web in ways the government does not like. The bill is garbage and being sold to the idiots under a lie.

Exactly.... However, i do need to wonder why the ISPs seem to be sgsinst jt?

ISP market is very competitive. I worked for them at the ground level dealing with locating their lines. End of the day only 3 or four companies own all of the lines in the ground and only because BELL got broken up. If they ever tried to do ridiculous price hikes like the fearmongering idiots are claiming anyone new could just come along and bury a fiber in your front yard and run it to your house for way less money. Just like what is happening with the newest fastest speed rated internet start up company in America in Minnesota named US internet. They saw an opportunity bought a few strands of fiber from an established ISP and started laying fiber all over the place and pricing better service at a much lower price to all of their customers. They install around 500 fiber to house connections a week in minneapolis right now. It is only a matter of time before they choke out Comcast and Centurylink in the area. There are laws on the books right now that allow them to buy up old lines or current lines and use them for themselves and their own business. If net neutrality gets passed those laws will be superceded by the new law and there will be no more new internet startups. There will only be the small monoploly of choices we already have and they will no longer have the fear of competition keeping their prices low. We will all be much more fucked then before. But I am sure whoever concocted this horrible bill and is trying to sell this atrocious lie to the American public has already come up with an excuse to explain it all away to the dumb sheeple after the fact in order to maintain what they gain from the law passing.

Thanks for the info. Good to know... People in general should realize if a bill is called net neutrality its g9ing to do the opposite.... I mean the Patriot act was extremely unpatriotic... The Freedom Act only hurt our freedom... The affordable care act made healthcare more expensive..... Its pretty obvious at this point without even need to look most of the time.

as long as people dont communicate we will all be taken advantage of. That is how it works. Do a media campaign to push your new freedom stealing law and give it a catchy name the public will eat that shit up. I work in one specific sector and have first hand knowledge that in the case of net-neutrality nothing could be farther from what they are pushing in this bill will actually happen if it is passed. Imagine if there was no medium with which we could all communicate knowledge like that to others . Knowledge that we may have but will never reach a larger audience outside of our small social and work circles we currently live our day to day lives in. We would be a dumb pacified populace succeptible to the will of people with more power than us who seek only to enrich themselves and keep us down. Kinda like we were before the internet. Exactly like they hope we will be again if net neutrality becomes law.

Idea: Look up some unusual names. I did a search using * in place of a first name, and my uncommon last name. 21 results, 3 of which had unusual first names, and only 1 ID on Facebook that matched. I sent those 3 FB messages with a link to the FCC submission on their behalf, asking if it was them. Now I wait and see...(they'll never see those messages, right?)

These snakes will stop at nothing to keep their strip club platinum membership fees coming.

Scum always floats to the "top"

This is horrifying.

Agent Smith in action

This should be evidence not conspiracy. This is real news. Finding out things and reporting them. So god damn backwards the paradigm today.

This sort of speech is already criminalized.

No, that's not true.

There are no obscenity laws that apply to ISPs, other than Title II. If there are, find them.

so what sort of speech do you think this regulation has curtailed?

Read the law:

initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

Title II literally makes "lewd comments" punishable by a $50,000 fine and 2 years in jail. Title II literally makes "indecent images" punishable by the same.

I'm not sure what laws you're referring to, the ones that make "lewd" comments and "annoying" speech criminal behavior on the internet.

If you could please cite a single source to back up your claims?

Keep in mind, this goes way beyond slander/harassment, which have been illegal, in all forms of communication, since forever. That's not what we're talking about here.

Title II explicitly makes offensive language illegal online. Not threatening, not slandering. Offensive. If there are other laws which do the same, please show me. Otherwise I'm going to assume you are misinformed.

There are still openly white nationalist and neo-nazi sites online, so what sort of speech do you think this regulation has curtailed?

It's about the threat of litigation. It opens you up to lawsuits. If an unscrupulous lawyer wants to fuck you, they could parse through your comment history and find "lewd" or "annoying" comments, and drag your ass through the mud with them in court, citing Title II.

You:

My original claim was that Title II applies obscenity laws to the internet.

There is so much stupid in your posts it hurts. And you wonder why people downvote you.

Buckaroo Banzai reference, nailed it!

hey now glenn beck draws on chalkboards we mostly all have jobs to go to... so there.

Okay, so you suck at speculating, not skepticism. My badz, yo

Peace meng.