For several decades, agencies have had to process thousands upon thousands of public

comments in certain high-profile rules, many of them identical or nearly identical. This problem

has grown more pronounced in the last few years, as e-rulemaking has made it a lot easier for

organizations not only to encourage members to submit form comments (“mass comments”)

but also to write algorithms that submit comments without any human involvement (“bot

comments”). And, in some cases, the computers submit comments on behalf of the deceased

or living persons who had nothing to do with preparing the comment (“fake comments”).

This panel features members of the ACUS research team working on a project titled Mass, ComputerGenerated, and Fraudulent Comments (currently slated for ACUS’s December 2020 Plenary Session)

and other experts. Among other things, it will address the following salient issues associated with modern

public comment campaigns:

• How big of a problem are mass, bot, and fake comments? Do agencies already have

sufficient mechanisms in place to deal with them?

• Are agencies under a legal obligation to consider mass, bot, and/or fake comments?

Are they legally permitted to use technologies to help combat such comments (e.g.,

quarantine all comments suspected of being “fake”)?

• Will these problems get worse as technology evolves? Or can agencies use AI to help

them separate the wheat from the chaff and process comments?

• To what extent do the numbers of comments received or the opinions expressed in

comments even matter? Should agencies just mine comments for relevant data,

regardless of whether they’re submitted by a real person?

• Should agencies consider mechanisms other than notice and comment tosupplement

the public participation process? Should Congress consider providing for participatory

mechanisms other than notice and comment in certain cases?

Panel also included Amanda Neely, Emily Hammond, Michael Livermore, and Beth Simone Noveck. Reeve T. Bull moderated.