Electronic Frontier Foundation: Report on fake pro-NN comments are absolutely, definitely, positively, unquestionably fake because of… apostrophes… or something

In a head-shakingly bizarre blog post this morning, Google’s favorite lapdog, the Electronic Frontier Foundation alleged that a report released earlier this week by the National Legal and Policy Center uncovering over 100,000 phony comments in the FCC docket using EFF’s pro-net neutrality form comment language was itself phony.

The sum total of EFF’s evidence? Well, lets go to EFF’s Jeremy Gillula:

Finally, the text that NLPC found in the 100,000 comments in question isn’t identical to the text our system uses. It’s close, but there’s a subtle difference.

One of the sentences our comment system generates is: 

As an Internet user, I’m asking the FCC to protect the net neutrality protections currently in place.”

The language in NLPC’s report is:

As an Internet user, Im asking the FCC to protect the net neutrality protections currently in place.

Aha! There it is. See it? No? Okay… Read it again. Now? No? Okay, read the two sentences again verrrry closely. You have to really squint

Boom!

vs.

Yes, dear readers, believe it or not, that is the totality of EFF’s “evidence,” a different apostrophe.

Nevermind the argument about whether the FCC’s system interprets an apostrophe the same way as EFF or whether Excel, Word or other programs may confuse the two. That’s descending even further into “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” madness.

If EFF’s budding Sherlock Gillula ever brought that weak sauce into court, it would be slapped to the bleachers.

So after limply offering up that “evidence,”Gillula then doubles down and without any basis in fact asserts that of course this is all probably the result of “malicious actors” seeking to discredit the FCC comment process.

Bottom line… Gillula’s obsession with the subtle curves of different apostrophes as “evidence” of a conspiracy is the perfect archetype of the tech-left’s obsession with net neutrality: Throw out reductio ad absurdum nonsense to make your case, while obscuring your true goals…

Which are… Well, we’ll just leave this here: