Suppose you want feedback on an idea, so you offer an opportunity for people to provide feedback. Ultimately, you receive 1.1 million pieces of feedback, what do you do? What. Do. You. Do?!
This is exactly what happened when the FCC requested public comment on their proposed regulations of net neutrality. Absent Keanu Reeves, this can create a real challenge. The Sunlight Foundation looked at over 800,000 digital comments submitted to the commission with some text mining using the gensim Python library.
The above graph shows feedback grouped by topic. Below are some key findings:We estimate that less than 1 percent of comments were clearly opposed to net neutrality
At least 60 percent of comments submitted were form letters written by organized campaigns (484,692 comments); while these make up the majority of comments, this is actually a lower percentage than is common for high-volume regulatory dockets.
At least 200 comments came from law firms, on behalf of themselves or their clients.
The data visualization groups the comments by topic--a frequent tool in text mining. Words or phrases that appear together are often associated with the same topic. For instance, a writing campaign by Avazz is easily visible in one of the groups.
At any point, you can view the specific comments associated with each group. This is useful to get a mapping between the analytics and the raw data. At times, it's clear where there is some misalignment.
In addition to the D3 visualization, additional analysis was performed on the text:
Around two-thirds of commenters objected to the idea of paid priority for Internet traffic, or division of Internet traffic into separate speed tiers. This topic was discussed in many independent comments, as well as form letter campaigns organized by the Nation, Battle for the Net, CREDO Action, Daily Kos and Free Press. Common keywords in this group included "slow/fast lane," “pay to play,” “wealthy,” “divide” and “Netflix."
About the same number of comments, including submissions from form letter campaigns organized by the Nation, Badass Digest, CREDO Action, Daily Kos and Free Press, asked the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under the 1934 Communications Act. Common keywords in these comments included "common carrier," “(re)classify," “authority” and “Title II” (a part of the act that might grant the FCC this authority). A smaller portion of commenters advocated a regulatory strategy with a similar effect but a different legal basis, relying on section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Several form letters either from the Daily Kos or of unknown provenance (combined with non-form letters) advocated treating broadband providers like a public utility. About 15 percent of comments discussed this topic.
These findings aren't immediately visible in the visualization, revealing some of the visualization's shortfalls.
The work itself is available on GitHub.










