The messages the post points out to are not duplicates, though. They have a very similar meaning, but uses entirely different wording so that they won't appear duplicates. In other words, someone went through the trouble of trying to cloak the fact that they're duplicates.

> The messages the post points out to are not duplicates, though.

There were two separate categories from the article. This is text from the article, "The vast majority of FCC comments were submitted as exact duplicates or as part of letter-writing/spam campaigns."

Sure. But where is this campaign located, exactly?

And how come dead people are signing up for it in droves, as has been discovered in the past?

And how come people who didn't sign up for it find "their" comments sent, too?

I'm all for avoiding bias, but we know enough about this campaign by now to say with certainty it's shady.

If you read the article you will see that whether this is a campaign or not is asked rhetorically, but the question it is not answered. These campaigns are extremely common in the world of online commenting, especially around government commenting systems.

> be careful you don't interject your own biases into your investigation.

That ship has sailed a long time ago.