FCC Website Hobbled By Comment Trolls Incited By Comedian John Oliver 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."
Wait a second (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait a second (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Looking at your comment, I hope the FCC turns the internet off as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You've been an internet fatbody since 5 digit id's, friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's the sort of thing we need! Have at it!
(Aside to moderators: Trolling is completely on topic on this thread.)
Re:Wait a second (Score:5, Funny)
It's their parents cable subscription, obviously. They watch it on the extra TV in the basement.
Re: (Score:1)
The segment is on youtube. It's the first link in the submission.
Re: (Score:2)
It is on the shows official channel. It is released as part of the advertising (a few of them have gone "viral").
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
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.
So they don't know the internet is international and somehow they block access to certain countries? Seems they must know it's international then.
Re: (Score:2)
They -know- it's international, their distributors just don't care. International viewers don't really bring in the ad revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That part of the show is also on YouTube.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The segment was online Monday. There was a link from The Daily Kos. Oliver also suggested that "net neutrality" sounded too borring to get people interested, and suggested the more accurate "Prevent Cable Company F*^kery" to describe the legislation.
Oh, brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty amazing when you look at the number of comments [fcc.gov].
The Open Internet topic had 45,193 comments. To put that in perspective, in the last 30 days, the five closest topics open for discussion had 95, 111, 113, 203, and 1678 comments (those two bigs ones were for ensuring compatibility with changes to 911 calling and the TWC-Comcast merger, respectively).
They're not trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:They're not trolls (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 trol
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Trolls are provocateurs.
There is no proper name for people who just spew bile and hatred.
Because the behaviour of a troll is more nuanced, and the activities of someone engaging in abuse is not, and the latter has no 'internet name' (catchy, unique, widely known) people have misappropriated the word "troll".
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the difference between Troll and Flamebait is impossible to determine, as it depends on the intent of the author. If someone posts on Slashdot saying "Mac sucks", it would be trolling if the primary reason they posted it was to get a rise out of people. If, however, they have used Mac computers and genuinely hate them, then it may not be disingenuous, and therefore is not trolling, but it is still flamebait since it's inciting yet another Mac vs. PC vs. Linux holy war.
So the GP is correct in tha
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. Slashdot fail. I am so smart. S-M-R-T.
Anyway, to illustrate the above, image a Venn diagram with two circles, the left one being "Deliberate attempt to elicit angry response (trolling)", and the one on the right is "Likely to cause a flamewar (flamebait)". There is some overlap, which on Slashdot could be modded either way, but flamebait that's not trolling is either naivety or sincerity, and trolling that's not flamebait isn't necessarily intended to start a heated argument between other parties.
Re:They're not trolls (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
nypa
Re: (Score:2)
Troll is the mod for the comment that you dislike which is neither flamebait nor offtopic, duh.
I thought that's what "overrated" was for.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Like when you see a comment that's been modded "overrated" with no other mods whatsoever. That just means "-1 disagree".
Not necessarily. I've used the overrated mod before when someone posts just plain wrong information. It's not flamebait, trolling, off-topic, and you'd really have to twist the definition of redundant to make that apply. Sometimes incorrect posts are too-highly rated to stay at +2 or +1.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the call to arms is from Anonymous. That's considered acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
Well played sir !
Re: (Score:2)
Government appointments sold to the highest bidder make for some terrible outcomes.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
"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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your fucking obtuse what?
Your fucking obtuse face is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes he did.
He very clearly did.
Just goes to show (Score:1, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Ah, I remember my 8th birthday, too...
Re:Just goes to show (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing! Have at it, sir and/or madam!
Maybe fcc.gov should have paid Comcast... (Score:5, Funny)
...a little more cash to keep the bits flowing smoothly.
Rap news puts it well (Score:2)
This is a very well done rap video on the topic of net neutrality worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Well that's a new definition... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
As pointed out earlier, it's not the FCC's definition, Oliver called on "trolls" verbatim.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Humor/snark aside, his description is apt! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite being funny, he definitely took no prisoners, and really did help identify a lot of the issues
* Tons of bills written in endless droning lawyerspeak which nobody can read through
* A lobbiest placed in a position of oversight over his former industry
* B.S. like saying "fast and faster" instead of the real "fast and slow"
* More B.S. like the claims that nobody was slowing down Netflix etc deliberately
Re: (Score:1)
Oh hell, he's up for sainthood.
He's a Brit, so he can't be President, but head of the FCC, or Secretary of State in POTUS Boris Johnson's cabinet, oh yes.
The British are coming, and it's better than 1812-1815.
--
BoJo tops O'bama - he understands the British Constitution, too.
Real Comments (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:1, Redundant)
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, eac
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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.
We used to have a term for this some years back (Score:5, Funny)
It used to be called Slashdotting.
Re:We used to have a term for this some years back (Score:5, Funny)
That bug was solved in Slashdot Beta.
Reddit (Score:2)
Amazing Video - Quite to the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
A call to arms! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Fucking Contrary to Competent (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Fact! (Score:1)
The population of comment trolls has tripled in the last 6 months.
Not designed for this (Score:1)
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.
FCC technical difficulties (Score:1)
Maybe they need to update their HOSTS file.
His comments apparently crashed Comcast also. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same as Dr Tyson talking on Cosmos about evolution not showing up on some flyover state's tv station.
Awesome Video!!! (Score:1)
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 norma
John Oliver - FCC (Score:1)
When 'contempt for system' goes mainstream (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:When 'contempt for system' goes mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)
And now that once great FCC is being run by the former head of the cable industry's lobbying arm.
Politeness and restraint will not get you anywhere when you are up against big corporations.
Sorry, but you got this wrong. (Score:3)
The FCC isn't a body that regulates according to enduring principles of openness, access and competition. It's run by political appointees. It's mission statement notwithstanding, FCC priorities ultimately reflect the political agenda of commissioners, the people who appointed the commissioners, and the people who will be employing those commissioners after they complete their five year term.
Sure, there are guys who work for the FCC who are like the park rangers; the guys with the loop antennas looking f
Re: (Score:3)
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
I wouldn't say the FCC is like the park rangers, anymore.
The FCC is the perfect example of the phenomena called "regulatory capture," when a body that is supposed to act as a check upon an industry instead becomes completely taken over by the industry they were supposed to regulate. It's a specific form of political corruption, and it's the de facto situation at the FCC, where the revolving door of appointments go between the FCC and industry positions. A few examples:
Michael Powell, FCC chairman for four y
Sheep were already angry; Oliver opened the gate (Score:1)
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.
Comment Trolls != Hacking (Score:2)
What that doesn't even make sense. Yes, perhaps some people that troll comments also hack, but the claim itself is absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Oops, that 'hobbled" not "hacked".
Still blaming John Oliver because people actually used the website is stupid.
Technical Difficulties (Score:3)
For a price, the FCC's ISP might be persuaded to unthrottle public access to their web site.
Hey FCC. This is how you and everyone else will be doing business soon if you make the wrong decision. Get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Could you do me a favor?
Sure, you might not like it though.
Could you rationalize to yourself why you must turn everything into partisan politics?
Firstly, that word does not mean what you think it means.
Secondly, you must be another republican or the parent.
Thirdly, whooosh.
*and since I'm usually kind to the unfortunate. John Oliver is a comedian who makes fun of the stupidity of US politics (ok, other countries as well, but the US just has so much stupidity it's a goldmine). It just so happens that it's the republicans who are usually clueless and full of stupidity. The republicans NOT knowing who John is, i
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
As you say, "not just the US." He did a great piece about Tony abbott, the Australian prime minister. Find it on YouTube. Or don't, it's embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
Great stuff, well done! Don't use it all up before you talk to the FCC now...
Re: (Score:2)
People have been doing that for years with absolutely no affect. The FCC was going to ignore public comment anyhow, so I would say its downright time gets mad as hell and says they are not going to take it anymore. Also, HBO owns John Oliver. I would expect they would be against net neutrality.
Granted, I don't see how defacing a website will do any good, anyhow.