Re:Prominent D.C. media firm implicated in fake FCC comments
by outsidetheparty on Monday February 25, 2019 @12:01AM
(#19243102)
> 14 organizations are under investigation, not just one.
I did miss that, fair enough -- amend my statement to "Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation of these 14 organizations".
> it's not clear why you'd think they are manually looking at any of these
It's not clear why you'd think 818,000 (per WSJ) identical comments submitted in alphabetical order should pass automated tests?
Re:Prominent D.C. media firm implicated in fake FCC comments
by ikeboy on Monday February 25, 2019 @12:07AM
(#19243141)
>It's not clear why you'd think 818,000 (per WSJ) identical comments submitted in alphabetical order should pass automated tests?
There's no reason to think they were submitted originally in alphabetical order. The most likely possibility here is that CQ sorted them before submitting to the FCC.
OP is narrowly focused on a particular one out of fourteen companies under investigation for unclear reasons. They don't say whether they've tried similar analysis of any of the other form comments. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say they expect more clicks here than with a more in depth investigation of everyone involved, for reasons left as an exercise to the reader.
>Astroturf exists and is a problem on all sides, yes, but this specific instance is far beyond the pale. Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation.
14 organizations are under investigation, not just one.
>But also beside the point. CQ claims they vetted their submissions for "questionable submissions".
And also gives a few examples, all of which are trivial to bypass, and all of which are automated, so it's not clear why you'd think they are manually looking at any of these before submitting unless it fails the automated tests.