Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

I'm actually too tired to write a fully fleshed-out rebuttal but I guess I'd just make these points:

1. The Onion advertises itself as insincere -- it's meant to be satirical. Therefore we go in with the expectation that it's "fake." This is different from a Site that advertises itself as legitimate, tries to enforce legitimacy, and is overrun with fake sockpuppets that try to mess with the integrity of the review system. A site that is intentionally misleading (and goes out of its way to advertise itself as such) is not the same as a site that is misleading against its will due to external trespassers.

2. Why is the use of one's real name required? Yes, you might get reviews that are more accurate/honest if people are using their real names, but that doesn't mean it's somehow ethical (or at least not unethical) to mess around with pseudonyms and screw the system. There are good reasons to not use one's real name on a review site (security and privacy mainly).

As I mentioned earlier, this is similar to victim-blaming logic. "If the Site wanted to remain a credible site, it should have been harder for me to undermine its credibility."

I would hope that you would agree that it's not ethical for someone to rape a woman simply because she's attractive and physically weak. Otherwise it's like saying "if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have made it so easy for a guy to take advantage of her. By putting herself in that situation, she waived the right to be outraged because there was no expectation that she'd be left alone in the first place."

That analogy isn't perfect but IMO it's close enough. Do you think it would be not unethical in that situation? If you think it's unethical, then what is the logical underpinning that differentiates it from the sockpuppet argument?

[Arch0wl]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

The Onion actually doesn't advertise itself as insincere. Rarely do they "break character," much less advertise in that format; when they have broken character (such as when they issued an apology for calling Quvenzhané Wallis a cunt) it's received negative reaction. On the surface, they do satirical things. It's the people who are in on the joke who tell you.

There is no similarity to victim-blaming logic. They're not even close to similar.

In victim blaming logic you blame someone who is on the receiving end of someone else's malicious actions simply because the person on the receiving end of those actions could have acted differently.

Here, pseudonyms aren't an entity or person. They're a kind of communication mask. The pseudonyms aren't on the receiving end of anything. Pseudonyms are an uncertain kind of communication mask, similar to sarcasm or satire, because you start deceptive from the get-go. It may be for privacy purposes, but it's still deception. You just don't regard it as such because you (and everyone else) has accepted this kind of activity as standard. The analogy to victim blaming doesn't work because the pseudonyms aren't acting one way or another; the people using the pseudonym are.

That said, isn't the idea that when someone does this that they're hiding who they are such that you don't know it's a pseudonym?

Not really; if someone is using a pseudonym you've resigned any assurance that they're who they say they are. The only way for this to not be true is if they have some identifying features that point to a real person, such as if you know their real name. And the more you do that, the less you become a pseudonym, and the more a pseudonym is just a nickname.

This argument I've made isn't saying "it's all right to trick stupid people", by the way. This is saying that pseudonyms are this way, and people have a view of pseudonym-based reviews that doesn't align with what they actually are. It's saying that whether it's deception or not entirely depends on what you expect from the medium, because you don't regard sarcasm as a form of deception due to the commonly-understood nature of the rhetorical device.

Sockpuppeting is unethical because it dissociates yourself from your idea which is only solving a problem to create another one. You're no longer associated with your idea, but you're now hiding and losing credibility instantly if you're found out.

You missed the point about ad hominem reasoning: ideas should be disassociated from the person, not the other way around. To peg a person to an idea and treat the idea as having some legitimacy contingent on the person saying it is ad hominem reasoning, because idea-validity doesn't change depending on who says it.

This is not the best example IMO, because the Koch brothers frequently and demonstrably engage in deception and cause a lot of damage.

The damage it caused is irrelevant because I mentioned that to disprove the thesis of "if your growth is inorganic from the start then you will not receive organic growth on a large level"; the point is that organic growth can follow from inorganic growth, and that inorganic growth on a small scale can lead to organic growth on a large scale. It does not follow that if organic growth proceeds from inorganic growth then there will be damage -- this is just an example of how inorganic growth can be a temporary push for organic growth. If you recall, I also gave an example on reddit that aided this point.

The privacy argument doesn't really hold up. In that case, you're just using deception (a mask) for a different and more understandable goal. In the case of people who use sockpuppets to promote a book review, you could just as easily say they're using it for a reddit-style "knights of new" purpose: that is, by doing this they're padding it against being knocked down in the early stages by a disgruntled minority and giving the book a fair chance. You're appealing to motives here: they have a good motive, so it's not necessarily deceptive.

Say, for example, that someone needs to go to great lengths of deception to protect their privacy. It's not enough to use a single pseudonym, you need to have a whole network of them so that no one understands who you are. For some celebrities and public figures, this may be entirely necessary. In that case, you're creating the same level of deception but just for a different and, to you, more understandable purpose (privacy vs. self-promotion).

The utility argument you brought up seems to be consistent with what I said. It might be true that you could accomplish the same goal in a non-deceptive manner, but not necessarily in the same timeframe or with the same ease. Further, it could be true that if you publish a text and don't sockpuppet the book may have a 40-50% chance of success, but if you sockpuppet that boosts the text's chances to 75-90%. This is more consistent with the reddit example I gave you earlier. It might be possible to have the text take off anyway, but it'll take a lot longer. In evolution example, certainly Darwin's theory took off anyway -- but what if it had taken off even earlier?

That said, though, the utility arguments assumes sockpuppets are deceptive from the get-go. I don't think so, because I don't think they're any more or less deceptive than pseudonyms.

So when it comes to reviews, we go with what is the best available option. The alternative is to either pick one at random (which comes with its own expected utility), or choose based on available metrics for a best possible fit that I can muster. In this case, John Doe. Do I risk being wrong? Of course. But if I tend to be right more often than not, or more often than if I had simply chosen at random, then he is my best bet.

That doesn't mean that your selection makes this way non-deceptive, though. It only means that you've had luck so far in choosing John Doe. If I walk into a gay bar and I happen to find a straight person, that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to treat the people I encounter as straight. A bar that advertises itself as a gay bar means that you should treat people as gay first and anything else second. A pseudonym is the same thing but with false identity: you should treat it as insincere first and sincere only as an exception.

I didn't know the bit about firms being hired to bombard pages with false reviews. If some page has something like 200+ false reviews, that's a bit different than an author using pseudonyms to pad the beginning stages of their book reviews. But then, that's still something I'd expect given the nature of pseudonyms (disposable from the get-go).

It may very well be the case that it's empirically impossible to ensure sincere, honest reviews as long as pseudonyms exist. Even if this is the case, it's still unethical to sockpuppet in this context.

That just restates the proposition that it's unethical, but the impossibility of ensuring honest reviews comes from the nature of pseudonyms. If you're using your real name, anything dishonest you say is the exception. If you're using a pseudonym, anything honest you say is the exception. You should expect sincerity when talking to a real person -- if that's what you want from reviews, make them real name-only. Otherwise, you're just opting in to an inherently deceptive system, even if the system is meant to encourage things like privacy.

[Dynam0]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

The utility argument you brought up seems to be consistent with what I said. It might be true that you could accomplish the same goal in a non-deceptive manner, but not necessarily in the same timeframe or with the same ease. Further, it could be true that if you publish a text and don't sockpuppet the book may have a 40-50% chance of success, but if you sockpuppet that boosts the text's chances to 75-90%. This is more consistent with the reddit example I gave you earlier. It might be possible to have the text take off anyway, but it'll take a lot longer. In evolution example, certainly Darwin's theory took off anyway -- but what if it had taken off even earlier?

That said, though, the utility arguments assumes sockpuppets are deceptive from the get-go. I don't think so, because I don't think they're any more or less deceptive than pseudonyms.

Is sockpuppeting even possible without the use of pseudonyms? That granted alone should be enough to convince someone that sockpuppeting takes the deceptive nature of a pseudonym a step further, regardless of if you think using a nickname is deceptive or not.

Looking at this from a perspective from someone within the scientific community, the fact that a deceptive act such as sockpuppeting achieves organic growth of an idea faster and with a higher success rate, although true, should not outweigh the benefits and significance of achieving this growth using honest means, no matter the urgency of instilling that idea. If the human race is too illogical or immoral to recognize a genuine idea without an inorganic jump-start to "get the ball rolling", then it is up to the publisher and actual supporters to try and change the public's image of that idea. To go about this using sockpuppets is, to me, unethical and possibly dangerous.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Arch:

You can argue that the pseudonym is deceptive, but it's only "deceptive" with respect to real identity, which isn't required in order to get a fair review distribution. It's like saying that I'm deceptive because I wear clothes to cover up and "hide" my naked self. It's not deception here -- it's privacy.

It may be impossible to ensure honest reviews with pseudonyms (you can't even fully guarantee it even with real names -- people still lie), but that doesn't suddenly make it not unethical to sockpuppet.

"If you're using a pseudonym, anything honest you say is the exception." -- I would say that you have not shown this to be the case. You're using it as a premise without showing why it needs to be assumed.

The argument is basically "If you use a pseudonym, then the entire system is fundamentally deceptive and insincere like the Onion, so now it's okay if I sockpuppet."

You're trying to justify one kind of deception with another. "I can sockpuppet and deceive by meddling with the distribution because I think it's deceptive for people to use pseudonyms." Even so, how does this make sockpuppetting not unethical? Do you think it's not unethical to use pseudonyms? Do you think deception is unethical?

EDIT: Also the bootstrapping argument (the organic growth thing) is a sort of "the ends justify the means" argument. It also ignores a lot of possible concerns with the nature of the growth. Just because something takes off doesn't mean it's "real" growth -- it can also be a shock resulting in a false equilibrium that self-destructs once it's found to have no real underpinning to support it (think economic bubbles).

It's also possible that it never takes off, and all that you've accomplished in the short-term is duping a bunch of people into buying into something based on a false impression/distribution upon which their decisions were made.

In other words, the distribution formed by the bootstrapping may be completely different from what the real distribution would actually be.

[Izzy]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Didn't read the entirety of the thread, but it seems like it should be up to the individual to be skeptical of how they come to believe what they believe. It seems like more of your own fault then the person trying to make you believe something.

In the case of children though I think it is disgustingly unethical. Especially in the case of religious beliefs.

Which would mostly commonly be referring to parents making their children believe a certain thing. The kids are going to believe their parents because you are hardwired as a small child to trust your parents and learn from them.

I think there should be some ethical responsibility to not mislead your children, but unfortunately there are no laws against teaching your children to believe whatever you want.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Didn't read the entirety of the thread, but it seems like it should be up to the individual to be skeptical of how they come to believe what they believe. It seems like more of your own fault then the person trying to make you believe something.

In the case of children though I think it is disgustingly unethical. Especially in the case of religious beliefs.

Which would mostly commonly be referring to parents making their children believe a certain thing. The kids are going to believe their parents because you are hardwired as a small child to trust your parents and learn from them.

Example:

I open a new restaurant. I write 25 posts (all using different pseudonyms so it appears as if these are all different people in agreement) for my restaurant on Yelp, most of which are glowing reviews.

[Izzy]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Sure, I never trust that shit but I can see your point as they could try harder and do better at making it look more authentic.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

But is it ethical?

[Dynam0]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

It seems the root of the ethical debate here is whether or not deception is a just means to an end that may or may not be positive. Under extreme circumstances you could argue that the deception (sockpuppeting) was absolutely necessary in order to improve humanity. This could be some kind of social movement that would have never got off the ground fast enough without sockpuppeting which directly or indirectly caused government action in favour of some just cause. *cough Kony 2012*

On the other hand, you could see people using sockpuppeting for a lot of negative effects/desires that are pretty self-explanatory. To me, the pros don't outweigh the cons from an ethical standpoint.

This brings me to another point Reincarnate brought up in another thread where he talked about decision trees and cause and effect using an analogy with a train or something. The after-effects of our actions are virtually impossible to ascertain, so having the assumption that an unethical means can justify some better end doesn't sit well with me.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

This brings me to another point Reincarnate brought up in another thread where he talked about decision trees and cause and effect using an analogy with a train or something. The after-effects of our actions are virtually impossible to ascertain, so having the assumption that an unethical means can justify some better end doesn't sit well with me.

I'm actually really curious what this was because I don't remember, haha


But yeah I'd say this debate boils down to two questions:

1. Is it "deceptive" to use pseudonyms in the context of an online discussion/reviewing system?
2. Does the answer to (1) in any way make the use of sockpuppets not unethical?

[Izzy]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Is being an asshole unethical?

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Generally, yes (although the severity/magnitude depends a lot of the context of the behavior and its impact)

[Dynam0]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Found it! Can't remember what thread this was used in but I do recall this clearly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[21992]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Most of my morality stems around truth, but I don't think sockpuppeting is especially untruthful. Deception is when you tell someone that something is true when it is in fact false. With sockpuppeting you don't necessarily have to say false things (though you can), you're just appealing to psychological factors that may be irrelevant.

Although I don't really have time to read your full explanation, I can comment on the section above. If you think (based of the quote above) that sock puppets are unethical , because your morality sees them as deceptive, I can see where you're going (although not really where your coming from haha). But making that assertion you say many many things are unethical, by your logic. Take example money or currency. Currency in the form of bills and gold coins or whatever it be don't have value because the object doesn't contain the value, it's all in our physique. What I mean is that your brain is the one that tells you that you probably want it and you can purchase other things you want with it. Eyes are also unethical because since no one has an infinitly perfect vision (not even someone who does have an infinitely perfect vision because there's always going to be a higher infinite) they are deceptive and therefore by your first statement unethical. Be aware that I only read your first paragraph.

[Hakulyte]

Re: Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

Utilitarism vs Individualism. Who will win?