Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Website Hobbled By Comment Trolls Incited By Comedian John Oliver

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the sweep-the-leg-johnny dept.

Government 144

An anonymous reader writes "In a recent segment of his new HBO show, Last Week Tonight, comedian John Oliver delivered a commentary (video) on the current net neutrality debate. He ended the segment by calling on all internet comment trolls to take advantage of the FCC's open comments section on the topic. 'We need you to get out there and for once in your lives focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction,' he said. 'Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly my pretties! Fly! Fly! Fly!' While the true impact of John Oliver's editorial cannot be confirmed, the FCC nevertheless tweeted shortly after it aired that its website was experiencing technical difficulties due to heavy traffic. They accept comments via email as well at openinternet@fcc.gov."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait a second (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161539)

There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

Re:Wait a second (4, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 5 months ago | (#47161667)

There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

No, there are that many comment trolls with a bit torrent client.

Re:Wait a second (-1, Troll)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#47161745)

Is that what you tell yourself while you're working the astroglide puddle and calling your pillow a bitch?

I hope the FCC turns the Internet off. Watching you pasty-ass fatbodies wander outside in your pajamas will at least entertain the media for a few days.

Re:Wait a second (4, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#47162495)

Looking at your comment, I hope the FCC turns the internet off as well.

Re:Wait a second (1)

dimko (1166489) | about 5 months ago | (#47162739)

Nope. We have stashes of Pr0n. We got games and stuff. Sooner or later holy internetz will gaze upon us from pages of 4chan. So, worry not, my fat bretherin and sisterin.

Re:Wait a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47163225)

lol

Re: Wait a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162345)

That many on YouTube

Re:Wait a second (4, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 5 months ago | (#47161671)

It's their parents cable subscription, obviously. They watch it on the extra TV in the basement.

Re:Wait a second (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161689)

The segment is on youtube. It's the first link in the submission.

Re:Wait a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162961)

Cause and effect relationship problems: The submission is a consequence of the server overload at the FCC, and not the other way round.

Re:Wait a second (2)

mlk (18543) | about 5 months ago | (#47162999)

It is on the shows official channel. It is released as part of the advertising (a few of them have gone "viral").

Re:Wait a second (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162037)

Just like Stewart and Colbert, Oliver understands that more than half his audience is going to watch his show online, no matter how HBO chooses to distribute it. The whole show, or the vast majority of it, is available officially for free with ads online.

Re:Wait a second (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162755)

Just like Stewart and Colbert, Oliver understands that more than half his audience is going to watch his show online, no matter how HBO chooses to distribute it. The whole show, or the vast majority of it, is available officially for free with ads online.

What Stewart and Colbert don't seem to understand though is that Internet is international. I just get "not available in your area" whenever trying to view their (official) online videos.

Re:Wait a second (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47162103)

There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

No, we pirate cable.

I would now like to rant about you putting half your post in the subject...

Re:Wait a second (2)

luckymutt (996573) | about 5 months ago | (#47162217)

There are that many comment trolls that have paid for HBO?

No, there are just that many trolls that know how to navigate to YouTube...kinda like the link in TFA.
Since you are not aware, "YouTube" is a video sharing website on a thing called he "Internet" on which said video in the article was "posted."
For further instruction, see this YOUTUBE link [youtube.com]

Re:Wait a second (1)

mlk (18543) | about 5 months ago | (#47162993)

That part of the show is also on YouTube.

Oh, brilliant (5, Funny)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 5 months ago | (#47161561)

Well done, Sir. Well done.

Re:Oh, brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161721)

I agree, his show is quite well done. Even got Lisa Loeb to help troll coveroregon.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh9munYYoqQ [youtube.com]

What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161575)

Government websites don't go down! It's working perfectly.

They're not trolls (5, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about 5 months ago | (#47161579)

He said nothing about trolls and the people trying to leave comments on the FCC website are not trolling - they're genuinely upset about what the FCC is trying to do to the Internet.

He made a joke about the low quality of the discourse found on the Internet, but did not call for trolls or advocate trolling.

Re:They're not trolls (2, Informative)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47161591)

Uh, a good portion of the end of his rant was specifically targeted at trolls. They're angry and pissed at everything, so he's just trying to get them to channel their hatred.

Re:They're not trolls (5, Informative)

sinij (911942) | about 5 months ago | (#47161653)

I don't think you quite understand how trolling works. "Angry and pissed" is what trolls try to do to their audience.

I am not sure annoying FCC will get us closer to preserving NN; if anything trolling will provide them with a "look, they are all nuts!" cover to ignore all feedback.

Re:They're not trolls (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47162085)

I don't think you quite understand the reason a lot of slashdot 'mods' (perhaps the parent) mod somebody a troll.

Re:They're not trolls (4, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | about 5 months ago | (#47162607)

My understanding of "troll" is "someone who posts content specifically to entice a response", be that response anger, confusion, etc. Likewise, a "troll" post is that content.

A "flamebait", another moderation option, is a post written specificaly to entice a flame response. In my understanding, this is merely a subset of a "troll", albeit usually one focused on known sensitive topics like race, gender, or religion.

Meanwhile, there's no moderation for actual "flame" posts - i.e. those posts written by people angry and pissed at everything for real, not just pretending to be to elicit responses. So these usually get moderated as trolls or flamebait or just overrated, whatever feels right at the time. I wish they would replace "flamebait" with "flame" and let moderators adjust accordingly.

Anyway, that's why I think mods use "troll" for angry and pissed-off posts; slashdot fails to provide a correct mod for that scenario, moderators often feel that "1" or "2" is overrated for those posts, yet "overrated" is too bland for general use beyond correction of inaccurate moderation (i.e. something moderated "informative" that is factually incorrect).

Re:They're not trolls (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#47163557)

My understanding of "troll" is "someone who posts content specifically to entice a response", be that response anger, confusion, etc. Likewise, a "troll" post is that content.

A "flamebait", another moderation option, is a post written specificaly to entice a flame response. In my understanding, this is merely a subset of a "troll", albeit usually one focused on known sensitive topics like race, gender, or religion.

Well, "Troll" has been watered down to mean "anyone I don't like", but it used to mean you were saying shit you didn't even believe in order to make people angry. A commonplace, real-world meatspace example of this would be calling someone a cocksucker as an insult as if you think cocksucking is a bad thing, because they will think it's a bad thing if they are a cocksucker. Flamebait is when you believe what you're saying, but you say it in a way meant to be offensive.

I sometimes flamebait, but I don't troll. Life's too short for that, because there are better video games. But it has been shown that some people derive enjoyment from making other people make a frowny face. It has separately been shown that visualizing training is about as effective as training, for those things which aren't actually based on increasing fitness but about doing something correctly. Perhaps it is possible to derive enjoyment from visualizing people making a frowny face.

Re:They're not trolls (3, Funny)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 5 months ago | (#47162699)

Troll is the mod for the comment that you dislike which is neither flamebait nor offtopic, duh.

Back to topic, if a troll obeys a call for arms, it is an impure trollable troll that needs his troll card revoked.

Re:They're not trolls (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about 5 months ago | (#47163253)

nypa

Re:They're not trolls (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 5 months ago | (#47162909)

I don't think you quite understand the reason a lot of slashdot 'mods' (perhaps the parent) mod somebody a troll.

Mostly: Troll mod = "How dare you have that opinion, you fucking moron."

Re:They're not trolls (3, Funny)

bitt3n (941736) | about 5 months ago | (#47162247)

I don't think you quite understand how trolling works. "Angry and pissed" is what trolls try to do to their audience.

In other words, trolling is a approach requiring subtlety.

Re:They're not trolls (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#47162499)

Well played sir !

Re:They're not trolls (2)

Kasar (838340) | about 5 months ago | (#47162959)

Ignoring all feedback seems a given from the industry executive turned lobbyist who is running the FCC anyway.
Government appointments sold to the highest bidder make for some terrible outcomes.

Re:They're not trolls (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about 5 months ago | (#47163263)

Nothing any of the ordinary people do will have any effect; the 'open for comments' is just for show. You live in a corporate police state.

Re:They're not trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161677)

Did you watch the whole video?

Re:They're not trolls (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161795)

He said nothing about trolls and the people trying to leave comments on the FCC website are not trolling - they're genuinely upset about what the FCC is trying to do to the Internet.

He made a joke about the low quality of the discourse found on the Internet, but did not call for trolls or advocate trolling.

I can only guess that the people giving you an insightful score are themselves trolling because John absolutely said what was quoted in the summary: "'Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly my pretties! Fly! Fly! Fly!'"

Re:They're not trolls (2)

evilviper (135110) | about 5 months ago | (#47161863)

He said nothing about trolls

Either you didn't even read half-way through the summary, OR you don't understand how QUOTES work...

"Seize your moment, my lovely trolls"

Re:They're not trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162537)

Well, "He said nothing _about_ trolls". He only _spoke_ to the trolls.

(I guess I'm trolling now :-)

Re:They're not trolls (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 5 months ago | (#47161951)

Well this is what he said, judge for yourself:

"That's right: the FCC is literally inviting comments at this address. And at this point, and I can't believe I'm about to do this, I would like to address the Internet commenters out there directly.

Good evening, monsters. This may be the moment you've spent your whole life training for. You've been out there ferociously commenting on dance videos of adorable three year-olds saying things like: 'Every child could dance like this little loser after 1 week of practice.' Or you've been polluting Frozen's Let It Go with comments like: 'ice castle would giver her hypothermia and she dead in an hour.' Or, and I know you've done this one, commenting on a video on this show [Last Week Tonight] saying 'Fuck this asshole anchor . . . go suck ur presidents dick . . . ur just friends with the terrorists xD.'

Now, I don't know what any of that means but I don't think it's a compliment. But this was the moment you were made for, commenters. Like Ralph Macchio, you've been honing your skills. Waxing cars and painting fences. Well guess what? Now it's time to do some fucking Karate.

For once in your life, we need you to channel that anger, that badly spelled vile that you normally reserve for unforgivable attacks on actresses that you seem to think have put on weight. Or politicians that you disagree with. Or photos of your ex-girlfriend getting on with her life. Or non-white actors being cast as fictional characters. And I'm talking to you, RonPaulFan2016. And you, OneDirectionForever. And I'm talking to you, OneDirectionSucksBalls.

We need you to get out there and, for once in your life, focus your indiscriminate range in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly my pretties! Fly! Fly! Fly!"

Re:They're not trolls (0)

guises (2423402) | about 5 months ago | (#47162073)

Oh fine, I guess he did use the word right at the end there. Maybe I should direct some of my criticism at him then: calling them trolls is just a way to sweep them under the rug. A troll is someone you ignore, it isn't someone with a valid opinion who should be listened too. I think the summary mischaracterized what he was saying by focusing on that one word that he threw in at the end.

Re:They're not trolls (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162233)

Your fucking obtuse.

Re: Your fucking obtuse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162647)

Apostrophize the geometrically obtuse morans!

See this is what flaming is for -- filling in the time while your telecom is slo-o-o-ow.

It's a lost art, kids.

Re:They're not trolls (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47163307)

Your fucking obtuse what?

Re:They're not trolls (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 5 months ago | (#47162501)

The wording, the presentation and of course the nature of program, means the proper interpretation of the presentation was not for trolls to comment at that particular web site but an open invitation to everyone to become a troll and inform the FCC what they felt about the way Obama stuck a Telecoms Troll (a lobbyist basically the ultimate trolls on the face of the planet, well and truly above and beyond what you typical internet troll is, they a democracy trolls screwing up your government for money) in charge of the FCC. This basically to screw over net neutrality whilst pretending it is good for the customer, something along the lines of convincing everyone that anal rape is good for you because it will make getting barium enema for bowel cancer seem much easier by comparison.

Re:They're not trolls (2)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | about 5 months ago | (#47162107)

Unfortunately, I feel that the current selection of comments are doing more harm then good.

A recent search for 14-28 shows many similar letters, and what appears to names in an alphabetical order. The FCC site does not sort by alpha, but rather by date posted.

Some wrote a very bad script to auto post a very similar collection of statements. The FCC is only going to see that, and ignore them, and worse, the ISP's who are dead set against NT or Title II will use that as cannon fodder to sway peoples opinion, and make us look like a bunch of idiots.

Re:They're not trolls (1)

Trip Ericson (864747) | about 5 months ago | (#47162839)

Comments filed on the same day are listed in alphabetical order. They're sorted in order by date (not time) and then by name.

Re:They're not trolls (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 5 months ago | (#47163191)

Yes he did.
He very clearly did.

Just goes to show (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161637)

That motherfucking sites should not allow any asshole to fucking comment and any stupid ass shit it in the news, or even worse, in the news at some other site and then only copied to that site. Motherfucking shit ass god damn cock sucking sites like that make me want to fucking puke.

Re:Just goes to show (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | about 5 months ago | (#47161857)

Ah, I remember my 8th birthday, too...

Re:Just goes to show (4, Funny)

trytoguess (875793) | about 5 months ago | (#47161957)

An anon calls for a site to put in steps to prevent any random Joe/Jane from posting on a site? The irony, oh it hurts...

Re:Just goes to show (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162667)

I'm pretty sure the irony was intended, you motherfucking shit ass god damn cock sucking blind idiot.

Re:Just goes to show (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47163265)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk&feature=kp

An anonymous reader writes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161641)

For comcast.

Maybe fcc.gov should have paid Comcast... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161643)

...a little more cash to keep the bits flowing smoothly.

Re:Maybe fcc.gov should have paid Comcast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161781)

Zing!

Rap news puts it well (1)

toQDuj (806112) | about 5 months ago | (#47161659)

This is a very well done rap video on the topic of net neutrality worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Huh? (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 5 months ago | (#47161681)

Who is "John Oliver"? And this post reminds me of Spurious Correlations [tylervigen.com] .

Some random comic makes a joke to a small segment of the TV watching late-nighters, and this somehow took down an FCC web site?

Sure, OK, if it makes you feel better....

Re:Huh? (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 5 months ago | (#47161711)

It could have been trolls responding to the call for action, then again, it could have been non-trolls responding to the article and the clearly posted website to send their responses and displeasure with this issue to.

I guess the best way to find out is count the obvious troll posts they received, as well as the number of pissed but not a troll posts, and compare those numbers to the total posts both after the John Oliver bit, and before.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161807)

I guess you've never spent time watching Comedy Central. Or Community. Regardless, John Oliver is pretty popular, despite whether or not you've heard of him.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | about 5 months ago | (#47161827)

Who is "John Oliver"?

Probably most famous for being one of Jon Stewart's Daily Show regular correspondants, and guest host while Stewart was off directing his movie.

Since then he's left the Daily Show to pursue his own thing; much like Stephen Colbert; and while not as famous as Colbert, he's very well known.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162811)

Who's Colbert, and is he evil?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161867)

Hey look guys, I found the person who spends his time on the internet acting superior to people who *gasp* watch television.

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161883)

> Some random comic makes a joke to a small segment of the TV watching late-nighters, and this somehow took down an FCC web site?

That youtube video of his entire net-neutrality bit has 1.2M views as of 48 hours after it was broadcast on HBO - that's 7 people per second.

Nevermind who saw it on TV, a metric fuckload of people saw it on youtube and they weren't just random people, they were people specifically interested in the topic else they wouldn't have clicked through to youtube in the first place.

Re: Huh? (2)

Fire_Wraith (1460385) | about 5 months ago | (#47163477)

Even better, people were sharing this through Facebook, with friends and family. We all should share it too, as it's probably the best non-technical explanation for them on all the key points. If you haven't yet, please do so.

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47162101)

It's OK. You're republican, you don't need to know.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47163211)

Could you do me a favor?

Could you rationalize to yourself why you must turn everything into partisan politics? Ask yourself why you must concentrate on differences rather than trying to find common ground? Why must you try to incite infighting for no reason? Are you working for "the man" trying to keep people angry at each other so nobody stops and tries to see the problems in the bigger picture? In short, why must the non-partisan comment of "who is this guy and why should I care what he says" be turned in to some sort of partisan attack?

Well that's a new definition... (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#47161701)

FCC definition of trolling: General public pissed off to the point where they crash a website to leave comments on an unpopular topic.

Up next: .gov petitions. Obama administration states individuals signing petitions are failing to follow doctrine. Re-education camps opening near you! Contact your local party official for the address.

Re:Well that's a new definition... (1)

_Ludwig (86077) | about 5 months ago | (#47161961)

As pointed out earlier, it's not the FCC's definition, Oliver called on "trolls" verbatim.

Re:Well that's a new definition... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#47162611)

As pointed out earlier, it's not the FCC's definition, Oliver called on "trolls" verbatim.

Don't worry if you, like the anonymous coward didn't get the joke, pop-reference, and implications of what the current administration is doing/acting like/etc. I'm sure that you'll catch it soon, much like how he's openly flaunting the law. [sfgate.com]

Re:Well that's a new definition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162289)

Your re-education should ideally start with reading comprehension.

Humor/snark aside, his description is apt! (4, Interesting)

Chas (5144) | about 5 months ago | (#47161715)

Seriously. I watched the video earlier today. It was remarkably clear, fairly concise and very accurate.

If this guy actually motivates enough people, even if for the wrong reasons, I salute him.
If he actually gets people motivated for the right reasons? Oh hell, he's up for sainthood.

Real Comments (5, Informative)

Ephro (90347) | about 5 months ago | (#47161729)

I was able to load a few of the comments. I never saw one "trollie" comment. Here are some examples:

I want the internet to be regulated like any other utility. That is what it is - a
utility. Everyone in this day and age needs to have internet access. It is not a
question of IF they need it. Accessibility to the internet pervades all aspects of
life, and it will destroy innovation and creativity of small businesses to have to
pay non-standardized prices for their internet traffic. Stop pandering to the money,
and start pandering to the people - contrary to what the money thinks, the PEOPLE
are the ones you serve.

---

Members of the FCC,

Individuals granted the power to rule over such a critical technology, during
such a critical time in the development of our species. Create a respectable
legacy.

Regarding moving forward with regulations to maintain an ‘Open Internet’,
it is critical that ISPs are re-classified as Title ll public utility providers, so
that both consumers and innovators are guaranteed fair opportunity in the
foreseeable future, and ISPs are prevented from gradually creating an
innovation crushing, tiered network over the next few decades. Use the
power you have now to create a lasting change, for if the regulation is weak
in its foundation, with time it will collapse under the force of the corrupt
interest of multi-billion dollars companies’ lobbying efforts.

Thank You,

Laser Nite
MIT Class of 2017

---

I demand net neutrality. People deserve equal access to bandwidth regardless of how
much they can afford to pay. The internet is an integral communication and
educational tool in our society.

---

reclassify broadband internet as a title II common carrier telecommunications
service

I want the internet to be regulated like any other utility. That is what it is - a
utility. Everyone in this day and age needs to have internet access. It is not a
question of IF they need it. Accessibility to the internet pervades all aspects of
life, and it will destroy innovation and creativity of small businesses to have to
pay non-standardized prices for their internet traffic. Stop pandering to the money,
and start pandering to the people - contrary to what the money thinks, the PEOPLE
are the ones you serve.

---

Just like everything else in this country, it seems the internet is now going to be
owned by big corporations. They are to follow in the footsteps of BIG PHARMA and
BIG OIL. We, as Americans, think that we have a voice, that this is a democracy.
That may no longer be the case. I believe we have no voice. Our politicians, our
food, our choices are now owned by the big corporations. If we do not have net
neutrality, it will be the final nail in the coffin of democracy around the world
and the corporation will be the dictator.

Re:Real Comments (0, Redundant)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | about 5 months ago | (#47162133)

The problem, is that if you look at the comments (I posted this earlier, so this will be redundant), the posters are in alphabetical order, but the default sort order is by posted date, which means a poorly coded script did the posting, and did not even randomize the names.

It makes no difference if it was a Website setup so people can just fill in there info and the system will automatically post to the FCC site, the fact is, the FCC will look at those comments, and possibly invalidate all of them.

Also, each and every one of those comments has a very similar tone, as if the same person wrote many of them and tried to pretend to be a different person.

Re:Real Comments (2)

Trip Ericson (864747) | about 5 months ago | (#47162845)

Comments filed on the same day are listed in alphabetical order. They're sorted in order by date (not time) and then by name.

Re:Real Comments (2)

LookIntoTheFuture (3480731) | about 5 months ago | (#47162237)

Members of the FCC,

Individuals granted the power to rule over such a critical technology, during such a critical time in the development of our species. Create a respectable legacy.

Regarding moving forward with regulations to maintain an ‘Open Internet’, it is critical that ISPs are re-classified as Title ll public utility providers, so that both consumers and innovators are guaranteed fair opportunity in the foreseeable future, and ISPs are prevented from gradually creating an innovation crushing, tiered network over the next few decades. Use the power you have now to create a lasting change, for if the regulation is weak in its foundation, with time it will collapse under the force of the corrupt interest of multi-billion dollars companies’ lobbying efforts.

Thank You,

Laser Nite MIT Class of 2017

I don't think it can be said better than this. Damn, that's good.

Re:Real Comments (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#47162531)

It might sound good to you, but is it a convincing argument to the people they're trying to convince.
Do these people want an "open internet"? Do they even think anything "open" is possitive?
Do these people find the interests of multi-billion dollor companies corrupt?

Re:Real Comments (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 5 months ago | (#47163005)

I don't think it can be said better than this.

Well, maybe not signing it as "Laser Nite" would be a little bit better..... wait, is that really his name? Maybe so, judging by a Google search. He looks like a cross between Rory Mcilroy and John Siracusa.

Re:Real Comments (1)

GNious (953874) | about 5 months ago | (#47162363)

If you did it too early, none of the troll-comments would have made it to the website.
I tried Monday noon CEST, and the latest comment was marked as being from Friday; even then, sorting open topics by number of comments showed that the one on Net Neutrality had an order-of-magnitude more comments than #2 at the time. People really want to comment on this thing.

FAST lanes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161751)

got fisted

We used to have a term for this some years back (5, Funny)

haruchai (17472) | about 5 months ago | (#47161917)

It used to be called Slashdotting.

Re:We used to have a term for this some years back (5, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 5 months ago | (#47162071)

That bug was solved in Slashdot Beta.

Reddit (1)

Any Web Loco (555458) | about 5 months ago | (#47162415)

Now it's called the Reddit Hug. A more powerful force, by far...

Amazing Video - Quite to the Point (5, Interesting)

WolphFang (1077109) | about 5 months ago | (#47161919)

I actually found this video quite informative and too the point. He definately attacks the issue head on while "sugar coating" everything in comedic form to hold attention. His approach to getting this message out in this video might be one of the most effective ways I've seen to date.

A call to arms! (4, Interesting)

McLae (606725) | about 5 months ago | (#47161967)

If any site deserved the "Slashdot effect", this is it!

I just left a comment. The number 2 issue with comments had about 200 of so. This issue has 45k and rising. Lets tack another digit in the end!

Thoughtful, reasoned, and on point. Let see if we can make a difference.

NN, bah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47161983)

I work for a big telco, tied you you kiddies riding our fibre for cheap. Time to kick you out of the big kids pool so we can get Disney and HBO taken care of. Thanks for taking down the FCC web site, that was very helpful.

Fucking Contrary to Competent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162033)

FCC: "We understand all the needs of the Internet, and are equipped to deal with any issue that arises, but feel free to leave a comment about what you think we could do better."
*Comment page immediately crashes and burns under the weight of pure hatred*
"Okay, uh, send your comments to this email address, which we will absolutely for sure read and respond to in very short order"

Anyone else tired of old white men selling cultural forces they don't understand or care about to the first bidder who comes to the table?

Fact! (1)

tehlinux (896034) | about 5 months ago | (#47162061)

The population of comment trolls has tripled in the last 6 months.

And Benghazi was about a YouTube video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162069)

Sheesh

Not designed for this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162117)

Their comments submission website was obviously never designed for this. The counter indicating number of comments submitted has been stuck at 45,193 since yesterday and when you request to view submissions, it is only able to recall 10,000.

moral police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162145)

receive no sympathy

FCC technical difficulties (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162201)

Maybe they need to update their HOSTS file.

You all lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162335)

He didn't say trolololo says.

His comments apparently crashed Comcast also. (1)

DRMShill (1157993) | about 5 months ago | (#47162353)

His last video doesn't seem to appear on Xfinity's instant streaming site. Yet it does on HBO Go. I don't know if they're late publishing it or what but that would be strange since every other HBO show always seems to appear on time through Xfinity.

Awesome Video!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162551)

This is Awesome! John Oliver stated it clearly. I'm sure the cable companies are crying and yelping and wanting to kill his show, but they can't. This is as good as when Dave Berry (who at that time had a humour commentary that was published in 4500 newspapers) had an editorial titled "Ask not what your telemarketer can do to you..." In it, there were stories of telemarketers bothering people at all hours of the day and night (told in a funny way), followed at the very end by a 1800 number that was normally not published, belonging to the US National Telemarketing Association. Don't know how he got ahold of the number. Apparently they wound up with circuit problems, and eventually had to remove the phone, delist the number, and add that number to its own trunk circuit (even though it went nowhere after the first week). The FCC needs to hear about this. It needs to feel citizen rage. It needs to feel the heat. LET FLY MY PRETTIES, FLY! FLY! FLY!

John Oliver - FCC (1)

shel10 (953848) | about 5 months ago | (#47162675)

There's one problem with posting comments on the FCC web site. You must provide name and address and other personal information. The site does post a statement, that all information related to the comment becomes part of the public domain. What a great way to collect information about individuals.

Re:John Oliver - FCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162851)

Yeah, I generally avoid this kind of thing for just that reason. In this case I figured that I'm supplying no more information than MyLife has published about me (without my permission) and it's an important issue. So I guess in the end the FCC is the ultimate troll, they succeeded in provoking me (and a lot of others) to respond.

Well played FCC, well played!

Re:John Oliver - FCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162925)

"There's one problem with posting comments on the FCC web site. You must provide name and address and other personal information. "

Yes, I had to copy/paste from the phonebook instead of inventing them. It really bothered me.

These trolls know nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47162721)

not your personal army

Answer the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47163059)

I would like to see Slashdot actually answer some of the questions that the FCC is asking. They are not just trying to find out how people feel about the proposed rule; they are seeking comment about specific technical issues.

When 'contempt for system' goes mainstream (3, Interesting)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about 5 months ago | (#47163073)

What a long way down to this.

TWENTY YEARS ago when a 1 megabit T1 cost $10,000 a month installed to the Caribbean -- with an equal measure of determination, deft grantsmanship and elbow grease we managed to bring Internet to the US Virgin Islands with the Virgin Islands Freenet [usvi.net] . One day in September 1994 connectivity was available for ~40 cents a minute if you dialed long distance to the states, a couple thou a month for 56kbit or 10k for T1. The day after you could get an email address, access Usenet groups and browse the web with Lynx on 4 (and later as many as 12) local dialup lines.

So when the National Telecommunications Information Administration announced the first-ever roundtable discussion on the future of the global Internet [columbia.edu] we were there, and carried the newsgroups so our growing user base could follow and participate in this near real-time discussion. The issues were well presented, the discussion was formal and polite.

There does seem to be a general lack of civility and willingness to participate in process these days.

Now I do hold some measure of contempt for the Federal Government as a whole in its hubris over control of the Internet. The NSA is pushing net neutrality in its charter-be-damned initiative to listen to everyone [slashdot.org] , the president-du-jour tolerates 'Internet kill switch' dialogue throughout the Executive Branch as if martial law security checkpoints should be written into law, and let's not forget the peoples' hero Al Gore who lobbied for the government to hold our encryption keys in escrow. There is a large bullshit factor.

But attacking the FCC is sort of like going after park rangers. For better or worse (mostly better) it presided over the breakup of the Bells. It helped to ensure that even rural USA modernized its telecom [fcc.gov] to bring about modern access choices, the ones we take for granted today, to as much of the country as possible. And now they are charged with accepting comments on 'net neutrality' -- which will be as hard to adequately define in the modern context as it would be to discuss.

Now more than ever we need the real voices of people who aren't afraid to write their thoughts into multi-paragraph letters and opinions, no matter the medium, so say something about it. Just like my Freenet folks twenty years ago were eager to do. These folks are not wanting to know how to control, they are asking in what ways it may be best to regulate.

Control is what we generally try to avoid. Regulation that occurs with a majority of support that accomplishes useful goals -- such as the rural electrification and building of telecom in America -- is a necessary part of due process.

Time to try to recapture just a bit of the cultural restraint and intelligent determination of yesteryear, methinks.

john oliver is the troll... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47163395)

he could have been actually helpful by encouraging viewers to post pro-network neutrality / anti big isp comments, contacting lawmakers, etc.. but instead he chose to tell them to troll, and in every negative sense of the word... good job, now the fcc will just ignore all public comment (they probably would anyway) and continue its path towards a multi-tiered, only-the-rich-can-play, internet.

Sheep were already angry; Oliver opened the gate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47163613)

When somebody says "THIS IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING THE THING THAT'S PISSING YOU OFF" (in a loud voice with a big pointy finger), they won't get much response if the people in the room aren't already pissed off.
The fact that the person (commission) at the end of the finger is actually responsible for regulating these things means that not only is the rage real, it's being directed at the right place.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?