FCC executive Matthew Berry has accused TV host John Oliver of inciting a racist troll army against the organization’s chairman Ajit Pai.

Berry – a Republican whose LinkedIn page identifies him as the chief of staff to Pai – took to Twitter earlier today to denounce the “racist, hate-filled attacks against Chairman Pai” that have allegedly been submitted to the FCC following an apparent call by Oliver to “urge the FCC to keep strong net neutrality rules backed by Title II.”

In his tweet, Barry shared a link to an article by The Washington Free Beacon’s Elizabeth Harrington titled “John Oliver’s net neutrality campaign filled with bots, fake comments, racist attacks against FCC chairman.”

“An analysis of comments to Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom filing, which Oliver has dubbed ‘Go FCC yourself,’ shows thousands of comments using fake names and bots posing as ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Michael Jackson,’ ‘Homer Simpson,’ and ‘Melania Trump,'” writes Harrington.

The author goes on to state that “Pai also received death threats in several submissions,” such as one which reportedly read, “F–k you Ajit Pai for what you are trying to do and I hope you die a horrible painful death with no remembrance to your name you cocksucka [sic].”

Another commenter reportedly wrote, “save internet and f_k this Ajit guy. He’s from India, deport that asshole. We will take care of him when he’s back.”

“Ajit Pai looks and sounds like an Indian fraternity brother who exclusively f_ks underage women,” wrote another user according to The Free Beacon.

The FCC itself does not appear to have commented on the negative comments aimed at Pai. They have, however, discussed an apparent DDOS attack that also occurred after Oliver’s statement.

“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight [after Oliver’s show], our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS),” said the FFC’s Chief Information Officer David Bray according to The Hill.

“These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host.”

The FCC did not attribute the incident to Oliver’s comments. CNBC does speculate his words are responsible, however.

Meanwhile on Twitter, many have lashed out at Oliver.

It’s not clear if Posobiec and others are genuinely upset or simply trolling similar liberal outrage when MILO was accused of unleashing a troll army against Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones. Nonetheless, the comments critical of Oliver are rampant.

The Hill
The Washington Free Beacon
Featured Image via HBO

  • Phillip Wears

    Let’s be honest here: Pai sucks and is very clearly working in the best interest of Big Internet. I also wouldn’t be surprised if a few of the hateful comments are from those codlnsidering themselves conservative but see the problem for what it is. And there are also the spam bots posting anti-net nuetrality comments on the FCC site. This whole thing is a clusterfuck that Oliver threw himself into. Yet a clusterfuck that needed to be pointed out. And what’s the most bullshit? Just pointing out the bad and trying to make everyone look like a villain rather than also point out the good. A lot of people on there want net neutrality to stay and have very real arguments for it. The entire world isn’t full of twats like the news only seems to cover because that’s where you get the numbers.

    • Joseph Biener

      Anytime someone uses a term like “Big Internet” they mark themselves as an uninformed boob. Big Internet, Big Pharma, Big Energy are phantoms created by the left to scare people into supporting their power grabs.

      You have apparently bought into the concept that “net neutrality” means a free internet. The problem is that “net neutrality” has nothing to with freedom on the internet. It is actually the exact opposite of freedom. First things first, it was illegal for the FCC to change the status of the Internet and regulate it. The internet is regulated by the FTC, and it takes an act of Congress to change it, which they haven’t done. That is why Congress recently rescinded the regulations made by the FCC last December.

      Now let’s see the shell game for what it is. “Net neutrality” was supposed guarantee free access to the Internet, but it didn’t do that. It put the FCC in charge of the internet with the power to regulate it however it saw fit. There weren’t even guidelines on how the FCC would decide specific cases. The former head of the FCC said they would be decided on a case by case basis.

      Do you get it? The advocates claimed in effect that Regulation = Freedom. Does that look familiar? It should. It is from Orwell’s 1984. That book was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. Shake the rocks out of your brain-washed mind and see reality for what it is.

      • mrksdiehl

        Net neutrality has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with free access to the internet. You read up about what net neutrality means and then you come again and accuse others of being brain washed… seriously

        • Joseph Biener

          Check your reading comprehension. I wasn’t talking about using the internet for free as in no cost. I was using the term as in unfettered or unregulated. Can you really not understand the context?

          • mrksdiehl

            Now let’s see the shell game for what it is. “Net neutrality” was supposed guarantee free access to the Internet, but it didn’t do that.

            That is what you wrote, I think you can agree that it does not read as you apparently want it to be read.
            On another note. Net neutrality still has nothing to do with the access to the internet but how ISPs are supposed to treat traffic in it. It is not a ‘regulation’ but the fundamental concept of how the internet works. It was coined by the ‘inventor’ of the internet himself.
            I get your point about how the FCC should apparently never put in charge but as one who advocates deregulation, net neutrality is the holy grale of deregulation. It is only one simple rule: All data is to be treated equal.

          • Joseph Biener

            I know what “net neutrality” is supposed to be. Like so many things, that term has been hijacked to mean the exact opposite of what it is supposed to mean. The FCC took regulatory control away from the FTC illegally and stated it would regulate the internet like phone service. Phone service is one of the most highly regulated services available.

            I agree there should be one simple rule, but that is not what the FCC promised nor what it delivered. All data being treated equal became all data being treated how the FCC wanted. The head of the FCC said explicitly that it would decide on a case by case basis how and if businesses could use the internet. That is a government-run internet, not a equal one.

            I can understand that you got taken in by a bit of linguistic hocus pocus. It is time for you to separate the reality from the hype. A government-run internet is not an open internet. You’ve been duped.

          • mrksdiehl

            Thanks for coming back. I understand what you mean. So if we both agree that net neutrality in its original sense is a good thing, what do you think has to happen now so we don’t lose it?

          • Joseph Biener

            First, the steps being taken to repeal the rules put in place by the FCC are a good start. The FCC should not be able to tell businesses how to do business on the Internet. If an ISP fails to serve its customers, those customers will go somewhere else. 95% of the population has a choice of ISPs. For the last 25 years we have seen the cost of service drop while the capacity has sky-rocketed. Customers are perfectly capable of choosing the service they want. Those who mistreat their customers will lose them to ISPs offering better service. It’s simple and it has worked for 25 years.

          • Plain Speaker

            So long as at least one competitor in any particular market refuses to throttle – great. But if the only competitor(s) must rent infrastructure then some markets will be throttled.

          • Joseph Biener

            Then address that particular market using existing laws. It is not an excuse for putting control of the internet under the FCC and treating like a utility.

          • Plain Speaker

            There are no anti-monopoly or anti-oligopoly/ anti-competitive laws in many jurisdictions. While I would *love* a multiplicity of choices for consumers, reality is that any business requiring costly infrastructure quickly becomes controlled by the 1 or 2 companies that install it. This is why oligopolies or monopolies that supply necessities are regulated as utilities. How many companies can afford to build hydro lines or install fibre optic cable – and then get the land to put up towers or dig?

          • Joseph Biener

            In the US, those laws are Federal so they apply to everyone. While internet is certainly nice to have, I think you would have a hard sell trying to convince someone that it is a necessity. Since internet can be provided over existing phone lines or cell networks or satellite dishes, there doesn’t have to be a huge infrastructure built in order to enter the market. So actually none of your reasons are really true.

            One more thing. Congress, and only Congress, has to power to determine how something like the Internet can be regulated. They have said consistently for 25 years that they don’t want the Internet regulated like a utility. What the FCC did was illegal.

            Yes, there are a few sparsely populated areas that have only a single provider, but I live in a tiny beach town and I have a choice of five providers. Until you can show a pressing problem of national significance, you just don’t have a case.

          • Plain Speaker

            We will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion it is impossible to get a job without searching jobsites on the internet and it is impossible to apply and respond without email. In Canada our gov’t is looking at making the internet a utility and I agree. I hate oligopolies but they are inevitable in railroads, hydro, telephone, nat gas, roads and highways, and now the internet. And, in my opinion, oligopolies in necessities need to be regulated.

          • Joseph Biener

            If you assume job sites and email are necessities, this implies that computers and/or smartphones are a necessity. Should the government tell people what kind of computer or smartphone they have buy and how much it should cost? Oligopolies when naturally occurring are only a problem if they use their position to extort their customers. Since Internet providers have been providing more and more bandwidth at lower and lower prices, that argument can’t be made. Your position is that they should be regulated for the sake of regulation. That is an abuse of power.

            I don’t if it is true in Canada, but here in the US, nearly every community has a public library with computers and internet connections that can be used for free. That further discredits your argument.

          • Plain Speaker

            Actually the fact libraries have free access to the internet and therefore that “computers and/or smartphones are” NOT a necessity. But the internet is…

  • Thomas Brown

    John Oliver is just another one of those supposed “comedians” spouting off from a supposed holier-than-thou position of supposed moral and supposed intellectual superiority. Him and his followers and the other hosts are all just a big gaggle of kangaroos all tied together, hopping up and down, hither and thither and punching people with words (mostly).

  • feliciasbeard

    How can we be a racist, troll army? The fight is for an open internet, not to bring the Klan back like the national party…aka Trump’s c0(k holsters.

  • Dante Alighieri

    As to (at) JackPosobiec who Tweets “He is so patronizing to his audience and all Americans just because he is from the UK.”

    Have you seen MILO Yiannopoulos? There’s no competition. John Oliver is the (drab & somewhat pedantic ) offspring of the Daily Show — MILO, on the other hand, is simply Fabulous. –D