SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 25 2017, 02:00pm EDT
Contact:
Email:,press@fightforthefuture.org
Victims Whose Stolen Names and Addresses Were Used to Submit Fake Anti-Net Neutrality Comments Send Letter to FCC Demanding Investigation
FCC must investigate and disclose any information about who is behind fake comments that posted people’s personal information into the FCC’s public docket without their permission. So far the agency has done nothing, and says they will count the fake comments as if they are real.
WASHINGTON
Victims of a campaign that spammed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with over 450,000 fake anti-net neutrality comments have sent a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai asking him to remove the fraudulent comments from the public docket and demanding an investigation into who is behind the identity theft.
"Whoever is behind this stole our names and addresses, exposed our private information in a public docket without our permission, and used our identities to file a political statement we did not sign onto," the letter reads. The letter also warns that "hundreds of thousands of other Americans may have been victimized too." See the full letter here.
Following the launch of Comcastroturf.com, a site encouraging Internet users to investigate the fake comments, Fight for the Future received dozens of verified reports from impacted people across the country. More than 2,400 people have also used the site to contact their state Attorneys General, calling for an investigation. (Separately, Fight for the Future also received a baseless "Cease and Desist" letter from Comcast attempting to censor Comcastroturf.com)
Two separate reports came from friends of recently-deceased individuals who confirmed their friends could not have posted the comments posthumously.
"In my nearly 30 years of being an Internet user, I've been extremely judicious about using my real name online. On those rare times when I have chosen to do so, it's been for something I feel strongly about. To see my good name used to present an opinion diametrically opposed to my own view on Net Neutrality makes me feel sad and violated," Joel Mullaney told Fight for the Future. "Whoever did this violated one of the most basic norms of our democratic society, that each of us have our own voice, and I am eager to know from what source the FCC obtained this falsified affidavit. I have been slandered," Mr. Mullaney added.
Although much evidence of this identity theft has been documented by concerned citizens, experts, media outlets, and organizations like Fight for the Future, [1][2][3][4] Chairman Pai and the FCC have taken no steps to remove them from the docket, risking the safety and privacy of potentially hundreds of thousands of people.
The letter to Chairman Pai calls for the FCC to take the following actions: "[1] Notify all who have been impacted by this attack, [2] remove all of the fraudulent comments, including the ones made in our names, from the public docket immediately, [3] publicly disclose any information the FCC may have about the group or person behind the 450,000+ fake comments, and [4] call for an investigation by the appropriate authorities into possible violations of 18 U.S.C. SS 1001 ("Making false statements") and other relevant laws."
"There is significant evidence that a person or organization has been using stolen names and addresses to fraudulently file comments opposing net neutrality," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future. "For the FCC's process to have any legitimacy, they simply cannot move forward until an investigation has been conducted. We need to know who is doing this," she added.
Fight for the Future encourages journalists to investigate this situation, and is calling for the FCC to disclose any information it has pertaining to the person or organization behind this attack. Further, we encourage journalists to ask ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T whether they are funding this activity, or providing funding for groups that could be engaging in this activity.
Fight for the Future is asking for all victims of this attack to email them with a report: team@fightforthefuture.org
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
New Project 2025-Backed Trump Rule Guts Protections for 50,000 Federal Workers
“This rule is a direct assault on a professional, nonpartisan, merit-based civil service and the government services the American people rely on every day," said one critic.
Feb 05, 2026
The Trump administration on Thursday finalized a major civil service rule change that makes it easier to fire certain federal employees and replace them with political loyalists—a move that critics say increases the likelihood of abuse of power.
The new policy at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—the federal government's independent central human resources agency—reclassifies tens of thousands of federal workers as "policy/career," making them effectively at-will employees and easier to terminate.
The policy, known as Schedule F, was first proposed by President Donald Trump during his first term, which expired before he could fully implement it. Former President Joe Biden rescinded the policy, but Trump revived it on his first day back in office in January 2025, despite warnings from experts who say it is illegal.
Schedule F is one of the policies recommended in Project 2025, the far-right initiative to boost the power of the presidency and purge the federal civil service.
OPM estimates that around 2% of the federal workforce, or approximately 50,000 employees, will be affected by the rule change, which the agency said is aimed at "strengthening accountability, improving performance, and reinforcing a merit-based federal workforce."
Scott Kupor, who heads the OPM, said in a statement that the rule change “restores a basic principle of democratic governance: Those entrusted with shaping and executing policy must be accountable for results.”
“This rule preserves merit-based hiring, veterans’ preference, and whistle-blower protections while ensuring senior career officials responsible for advancing President Trump’s agenda can be held to the same performance expectations that exist throughout much of the American work force," he added.
However, critics are sounding the alarm over parts of the new policy, including a provision allowing agencies to fire employees who "obstruct the democratic process by intentionally subverting presidential directives."
“This rule is a direct assault on a professional, nonpartisan, merit-based civil service and the government services the American people rely on every day,” American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) national president Everett Kelley said in a statement.
“When people see turmoil and controversy in Washington, they don’t ask for more politics in government, they ask for competence and professionalism," Kelley continued. "OPM is doing the opposite. They’re rebranding career public servants as ‘policy’ employees, silencing whistleblowers, and replacing competent professionals with political flunkies without any neutral, independent protections against politicization and arbitrary abuse of power.”
“A professional civil service means nurses and doctors can advocate for patient safety, inspectors can report violations, cybersecurity experts can warn about threats, and benefits specialists can tell the truth about what it takes to deliver services—without worrying they’ll be punished for it,” Kelley argued.
“Turning tens or maybe hundreds thousands of these professionals into at-will employees doesn’t make government more accountable," he added. "It makes it more vulnerable to pressure, retaliation, and political interference, which is exactly the opposite of what the public is asking for right now.”
Democracy Forward, which represents AFGE and another public sector union in a lawsuit challenging Trump's revival of Schedule F, said in a statement Thursday, "The final rule continues to weaken more than a century of bipartisan civil service protections by allowing the administration to remove experienced, nonpolitical federal employees at will while stripping away civil service protections, meaningful oversight, and appeal rights."
"Existing law already provides mechanisms to address employee misconduct," the group added. "This rule is not about accountability, but about politicization."
The Trump-Vance admin is choosing to ignore countless concerns from the American public in order to implement a cornerstone of Project 2025 – an unlawful effort to weaken and politicize the nonpartisan civil service through regulation. To that we say: we will see you in court.
[image or embed]
— Democracy Forward (@democracyforward.org) February 5, 2026 at 7:06 AM
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said that "this proposal was wrong when it was outlined in Project 2025, wrong when the president issued an executive order, and it remains wrong now... This is a deliberate attempt to do through regulation what the law does not allow—strip public servants of their rights and make it easier to fire them for political reasons and harm the American people through doing so."
"We have successfully fought this kind of power grab before, and we will fight this again," Perryman vowed. "We will return to court to stop this unlawful rule and will use every legal tool available to hold this administration accountable to the people.”
On the legislative front, US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and the late Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) last year reintroduced the Save the Civil Service Act, which aims "to protect the federal workforce from politicization and political manipulation."
“The civil servants who make up our federal workforce are the engine that keeps our federal government running,” Connolly, who died last May of cancer, said at the time. “They are our country’s greatest asset. We rely on their experience and expertise to provide every basic government service—from delivering the mail to helping families in the wake of natural disasters."
Connolly added that Trump's push to "remove qualified experts and replace them with political loyalists is a direct threat to our national security and our government’s ability to function the way the American people expect it to."
"It threatens to create a system wherein benefits and services are delivered based on the politics, not the needs, of the recipient," he added. "Expertise, not political fealty, must define our civil service.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Democracy Dies in Oligarchy,' Says Sanders of Mass Layoffs at Washington Post
"If Jeff Bezos could afford to spend $75 million on the Melania movie," said the senator, "please don't tell me he needed to fire one-third of the Washington Post staff."
Feb 05, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday added his voice to those who categorically rejected the notion that "financial challenges" were behind the Washington Post's decision to slash more than 300 jobs, considering the venerated newspaper is owned by the world's fourth-richest person, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
The tech mogul, Sanders (I-Vt.) noted, spent tens of millions of dollars last year on his wedding in Italy, and owns a $500 million yacht. Bezos has a net worth of at least $235 billion.
Most notably, the senator pointed to the $75 million Bezos just spent purchasing the rights to and promoting a documentary film about First Lady Melania Trump—one that critics have condemned as a clear "bribe," and whose premiere was followed by a visit to Bezos' space tech company Blue Origin by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said the firm is likely to do “plenty of winning” as the Pentagon hands out new defense contracts.
In a grim play on the tagline Bezos emblazoned on the Post's masthead after he bought the paper in 2013 for $250 million, Sanders wrote, "Democracy dies in oligarchy."
Sanders spoke out as numerous Post journalists announced that they had been affected by the mass layoffs, which will hit all sections of the newspaper and entirely shut down its sports and book review pages.
The international news section was also heavily impacted by the layoffs, and Ukraine correspondent Lizzie Johnson announced on social media that she had been "laid off by the Washington Post in the middle of a war zone."
Martin Weil, a longtime local reporter who joined the Post in 1965 and contributed to the paper's historic Watergate coverage, was also among those who were laid off.
Sanders has long criticized Bezos' decision to take over the Post and suggested that the mogul would not ensure fair coverage of issues impacting working Americans. In 2019, he said that the newspaper appeared biased against his progressive politics as he sought the Democratic nomination to run for president.
At the time, then-executive editor Martin Baron countered that "Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."
Last year, months after Bezos pulled an endorsement for then-Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign and following an announcement that the opinion page would focus on “personal liberties and free markets," opinion editor David Shipley announced his resignation. Columnist Ruth Marcus also stepped down weeks later after CEO Will Lewis allegedly refused to run a column critiquing Bezos' changes to the opinion section.
On Wednesday, Baron said the gutting of the Post's newsroom marked one of "the darkest days in the history of one of the world's greatest news organizations" and took aim at Bezos, whom he accused of "betraying the values he was supposed to uphold."
"The Post's challenges... were made infinitely worse by ill-conceived decisions that came from the very top," said Baron. "Bezos' sickening efforts to curry favor with President [Donald] Trump have left an especially ugly stain of their own."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fresh Fury as Schumer, Jeffries Bend on Demand to Unmask ICE Agents in Funding Talks
"Schumer needs to get the hell out," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "He continues to demonstrate to us that he can't meet the moment."
Feb 05, 2026
Democratic leaders in Congress are already backing down on one of their key demands in the fight to reform the federal immigration agencies terrorizing Minnesota and other parts of the country.
On Wednesday, Democrats laid out a list of 10 "guardrails" they said they wanted to see put in place to protect the public from abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, before agreeing to a new round of funding for their parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The list called to "prohibit ICE and immigration agents from wearing face coverings" to conceal their identities, which Democratic leaders have stressed as a key reform for weeks.
But during a press conference on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) raised many eyebrows when they introduced a heap of caveats to their demand.
“I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people,” Jeffries said.
Schumer added that agents “need identification and no masks, except in extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
When a HuffPost reporter attempted to ask Schumer if the party had changed its position on masks, Schumer sidestepped the question. But other top Democrats clarified that they were looking at certain exceptions.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that while masks should generally be "prohibited by law" as a part of everyday enforcement, there are "sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who went against the majority of the party earlier this week to vote for two weeks of DHS funding to keep the government open, said they were discussing when to implement "narrow exceptions" with members of law enforcement and suggested that "dealing with a cartel" could be one of them.
Of course, the Trump administration has often asserted that all the immigrants they target are dangerous criminals—"the worst of the worst"—including cartel members, even when this is not the case, raising questions about who might be in charge of determining when masks are necessary.
Critics have been underwhelmed by many of the other demands on the list as well.
Journalist and commentator Adam Johnson said it was a collection of “mostly cosmetic, pointless, unenforceable, or actively harmful ‘reforms,’” with some—including the requirement for judicial warrants and a ban on racial profiling—already being mandated by the Constitution but flouted by agents regardless.
He described it as outrageous that Democrats were demanding "zero reduction in DHS’ obscene budget which... tripled, just 12 months ago."
Civil rights lawyer Alec Karakatsanis, the founder of the group Civil Rights Corps, called the list "one of the great political failures of our time" and said "it must be immediately denounced by all people of goodwill."
Meanwhile, Axios reported on Thursday that many rank-and-file members of the Democratic caucus are fuming over party leadership's refusal earlier this week to use the threat of a government shutdown to force reforms.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the CPC's chair emerita, pondered "'What are we going to get in 10 days that we didn't get?'"
"Every time that we are winning, we seem to somehow sabotage [it]," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).
She noted that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has already ruled out several Democratic demands, including the requirement of judicial warrants.
ICE agents do not need a warrant to make arrests, but the Fourth Amendment prohibits them from entering private residences without a judicial warrant. An internal memo last month advised agents to ignore that law. Johnson said this week that requiring federal agents to obtain judicial warrants is "a road we cannot and should not go down.”
Other Democrats anonymously expressed their distrust in Schumer, who has caved in other hugely consequential fights in the second Trump era, most recently regarding the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies during last fall’s record-breaking government shutdown, which left tens of millions of Americans facing doubled health insurance premiums.
"The main feeling among members is a lack of trust in his strength and ability to strike a hard bargain," one anonymous Democrat said.
Another said, “All those spending bills, that is the most leverage,” adding that “many folks in the [House] Democratic caucus wish that we had more confidence in Schumer’s ability to navigate a good, tough deal.”
Sixty votes will be required for a deal to pass the Senate, meaning at least seven Democrats will need to join Republicans for DHS to receive full funding and avoid shutting down on February 14.
While this still gives Democrats some leverage to push demands, Ramirez said previous fights give her zero confidence in Schumer's willingness to hold the line.
"I'm gonna continue to tell you that Schumer needs to get the hell out over and over and over until he does," Ramirez said. "He continues to demonstrate to us that he can't meet the moment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular