Ummm... I looked at the account, and it doesn't look like a shill account in the slightest.
In this case, I personally came to the comments to say exactly what the top comment said: This is raising the subscriber compliance limit from 100k to 250k. Nothing to see here. No "threat" to net neutrality at all, except if you're trying to sensationalize it.
I'm more worried about net neutrality when it's giant companies like Verizon or Comcast. Not so much about the compliance of smaller companies, who:
1. Aren't big enough fish to cause the kinds of problems with product adoption that most of the net neutrality worst-case scenarios depict.
2. Aren't big enough to cut the deals with larger content suppliers that net neutrality is trying to prevent.
3. Frequently are barely able to survive at those scales, so the extra regulatory burden isn't actually worth cutting into their meager profits.
That's jumping to quite the conclusion. As I've responded to a few people here, I have a site where I write about technology and freedom. Net neutrality is a big topic in that area, but I also write about privacy, free speech & censorship, cryptocurrency & blockchain, etc.
I am certainly not a shill, nor spreading propaganda for any one or any industry. I'm a software developer who works in a completely unrelated industry to telecom.
Look, we probably agree on the primary issue here: to maintain a free and open internet. I dislike the AT&Ts and Comcasts as most do here, and I choose not to do business with them.
Where we likely disagree is how to maintain a free and open internet. I don't believe the government should play that role, as they often (in my opinion) push for more and more control once their foot is in the door. That's not what I want.
> This is then kind of thing you see in authoritarian states and rather chilling.
No, actually, throwing labels like "shill" and "propaganda" at someone to discredit them and squelch their desire to speak freely is what you find in authoritarian states.
Every time I post an opinion that goes against the net neutrality norm, I'm accused of being an agent of the FCC or telecom industry.
Can I not hold an opinion that differs from the norm? I posted (in my opinion) a question to provoke thought and discussion in a completely non-trolling, non-harassing, non-toxic way.
To be fair: even assuming subverter is a shill, it's far more likely that the account is being directed by the ISP lobby or related interests than by the FCC, whose employees are bland bureaucrats except at the very top. That's not authoritarianism, it's just astroturf. Non-government entities have been doing it for decades too.
Neither is true. I'm a software developer who works in a completely unrelated industry. I'm just intrigued by technology and freedom, which is what I write about on my site – and why most of my HN comments and submissions are on related topics.
> To overthrow or destroy (a government or an established order or authority).
Note the part in parenthesis, which is exactly why I chose the name for my site. I do not like the FCC, nor government in general.
How does that square with my original comment? In my view, one less government regulation is a step in the right direction. I want government to stop forcing itself into the role of regulator of the internet.
The person you’re referring to has three comments in total, and of their submissions only ONE has anything to do with FCC.
You’re attacking person, not argument, and rather ineffectively.
EDIT: Okay, you meant someone else. Still, calling someone with almost 10 year active account a shill requires more evidence than this. Stick to the facts.
Huh? The guy with the 10 year post history called Subverter a shill. Subverter has a 43 day post history, three anti-net neutrality comments, and two anti-net neutrality submissions. You can't see one, because it was flagged:
That was certainly a badly worded title on my part. Shortly after posting it to HN – and reading the comments – I went back and amended the title and included a note about it in the post. It was a mistake and I take responsibility.
The reason I have a 43 day post history is because that's how long my site of the same name has been in existence. I've been a long-time reader of HN and commented (albeit rarely) under my own name for many years.
The reason many of my comments and submissions have been net neutrality related is because it's exactly the type of topic that my site deals with: technology and freedom. In addition to privacy, free speech & censorship, cryptocurrency & blockchain, etc.
I have skimmed your website at the time and found it really interesting.
I find this “shillcalling” very annoying, but I understand where it’s coming from. If you look at Reddit, for example, it has been an entire two weeks of constant “Bill Gates is great” posts. Astroturfing is out of control.
At the same time it makes discussion impossible. I have myself been called a “shill” on several occasions now (not here), just by disagreeing with the narrative slightly. Any dissent is now seen with suspicion which just pushes everyone more and more to the extremes.
Since you made a post about machine learning assisted moderation, I am wondering if you thought about how ML could be used to bring back discussion to a neutral, or at least merit-based scoring?
It seems everyone wants to apply ML to the content itself (like Perspective), but wouldn’t it be more effective to instead use ML to assign weight to the ratings? For every topic there must exist a subset of people that can judge it by its merit, without immediately succumbing to their biases. It seems if you could identify that subset of users, and weight their scoring more (and that subset might be different per topic), then it should be possible to avoid the usual traps of popularity-based scoring systems, including astroturfing and vote manipulation.
