This is a question I've gotten a lot in recent days -- and I totally get it. When it comes to this issue, I ask people to keep something important in mind: the law protects more than just our physical safety – it protects important intangibles, such as our property interests, our civil rights, our control of our identities, and even our dignity. Fake comments hurt Americans in several ways. First, they deprive those who wish to make their voice heard the ability to do so, by drowning them out or negating their actual view (especially when a fake comment in their name is misused with a comment expressing the opposite view of the one they really hold – we’ve see lots of these). Second, fake comments lead to worse policy outcomes for everyone, because policymakers are acting on incorrect information. Third, fake comments can erode public faith in their government’s legitimacy, which is indispensable in a democracy. Fourth, they are an offense to dignity for many of those whose identities are misused. On the web form my office put up for people to check if their identity was misused and report it, we included a comment form. What we’ve seen is very telling: many New Yorkers, and Americans in other states, are deeply insulted that their identities were misused.

I feel the harm is caused by appropriating a process that's supposed to be a way for citizens to voice their opinion and rendering it useless, regardless of which names are signed to the content for or against. It seems like another attack on citizens' trust for government process.

There were hundreds of thousands of real comments. There's no way they were going to make a difference anyway, it's not like the vast majority of them were informed.

> How do these comments harm real people?

When they are used to justify policies that harm real people. That question is so silly I first thought it was rhetorical.

Do you really think regulatory decisions are made based on which side gets more public comments? And that that is so obvious anyone who disagrees is silly?

Regulatory decisions are supposed to be made with public input. We're all aware that the agencies often ignore input. That doesn't mean it's ok to make fake input. The FCC will use these fake comments to create the illusion that the public has given them a mandate. That's unacceptable.

The FCC actually said they threw out all comments that didn't have actual legal arguments, quite the opposite of what you're suggesting.

That sounds like a roundabout way of agreeing that it doesn't harm any real people, it just shouldn't be done and should be prosecuted

Deceiving the public with a fake narrative of popular support harms society.

Why would you prosecute something that doesn't harm anyone?