Is sockpuppeting unethical, and why?

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Izzy

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]

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]

But is it ethical?

[Dynam0]

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]

Originally Posted by Dynam0

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]

Is being an asshole unethical?

[Reincarnate]

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

[Dynam0]

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]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

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]

Utilitarism vs Individualism. Who will win?

[Cavernio]

Reiterating on a point I made earlier that no one commented on: the deceit or lack thereof is in the intent of person using the pseudonym. So no, the relevancy of the argument is not really strongly tied into use of pseudonym's like, say, usernames on a forum.

Use of sarcasm isn't a proper comparison as sarcasm isn't trying to hide something. Its intent isn't to, say, drop under the radar of the law or some such (although it might be that way in some shitty parts of the world). Sarcasm's intent will rarely be trying to hide something while sockpuppeting will always be hiding something, and that's totally irrelevant of whether someone approaches all pseudonym's and all of what they say with giant rocks of salt. Also importantly, sarcasm's obvious to the majority of the world for what it is, and is socially acceptable.

The only way Arch's point can have anyweight is if people actually believe it and think that way for themselves. Obviously most people don't see it that way. If they did, sockpuppeting wouldn't even exist as it wouldn't work. But it does exist, and it does work, and for that alone the argument's dead.

[Reincarnate]

OK, let's try this from the bottom-up, then (since I think maybe I misinterpreted the core of Arch's argument before):

Granted, when I go to a review site where people use pseudonyms, I don't necessarily expect sincerity. But the reason I don't expect sincerity is because people abuse the system.

Arch might look at this and say something like "So you are acknowledging that deceit is expected on the review site thanks to pseudonyms. Since we can claim that deceit is an accepted norm, and ethics is a system that depends on morality derived from accepted norms, I claim that the accepted norm of deceit renders the deceitful use of sockpuppets not unethical."

(Apologies if I have butchered your argument somehow Arch)

The difference here is that the "accepted norm" of deceit on a site like the Onion is a norm we both expect and want. The "accepted norm" of insincerity on a pseudonym-based review site is a norm we expect, but don't want -- and we would call this problematic. We would consider it "wrong" to exacerbate or contribute to this problem, such as through the use of sockpuppets. So it's unethical, in this context, to sockpuppet.

Why would we consider it problematic? Because most people who use review sites want the reviews to be as honest and accurate as possible. They expect that the reviews are written by people just like them: independent, external agents who don't have some hidden agenda and simply have a desire to consume the product/service. Anything that undermines this is considered problematic.

[devonin]

As a published reviewer, I take my integrity very seriously. We've banned people from the sites I write for, for sockpuppeting, and I absolutely believe that should be standing policy everywhere.

If you are using fake personas to make an opinion seem more widely held than it is, you are doing something dishonest and wrong.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

The difference here is that the "accepted norm" of deceit on a site like the Onion is a norm we both expect and want. The "accepted norm" of insincerity on a pseudonym-based review site is a norm we expect, but don't want -- and we would call this problematic. We would consider it "wrong" to exacerbate or contribute to this problem, such as through the use of sockpuppets. So it's unethical, in this context, to sockpuppet.
.

Yup, except that I'd not call deceit that someone expects and wants deceit.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Yup, except that I'd not call deceit that someone expects and wants deceit.

I mean, sure, perhaps "desired insincerity" or whatever might be a better way to put it.

We accept insincerity on the Onion or the Colbert Report because we consume those products when we want something funny. We don't accept insincerity on review sites because we go there with the hopes of getting reasonably accurate information.

Should we necessarily expect accurate information? No -- and as posted earlier, you can have a site like Yelp that uses "real names" and *still* get plagued by shill reviews and sockpuppets. Sites that require "real names" can still be circumvented because a name is just a name unless you can tie it to a piece of official government-issued ID, but at that point there are privacy and security concerns (just look at sites like Quora).

And so I mean it's demonstrably true that you're going to get insincerity and inaccuracy wherever you go. You surely wouldn't argue that all sites are therefore inherently insincere and then lump everything together in the same category as the Onion or 4chan.

Is it easier to be insincere when using a name that isn't your real one? Sure. But this doesn't suddenly justify other insincere actions like sockpuppeting. You can only justify it as not unethical by showing that it doesn't clash with condoned moral norms, which it clearly does (people don't want to be intentionally deceived when they're after real information).

You might argue that bootstrapping the initial reviews is still a form of propagating real information because what you're saying is "still true" and we should care about WHAT is said rather than WHO is saying it.

There are a few problems with this.

1. You assume that your contributed sample is actually representative of the future population's properties when it may not be the case. Maybe what you're saying isn't actually so true.

2. You are also giving people a false sense of security. If I knew that 1000 different, random people liked something, I'd trust that distribution more than if I knew one or two people liked something, because that last scenario is too inconclusive and has too much variance to be effective for predicting anything on margin. Therefore to make the latter look like the former is dishonest and hence unethical in this context.

3. Even if you argue that "my product would get buried and nobody would see it if I didn't bootstrap," it (wrongly) assumes that bootstrapping is the only way around this, and it still doesn't justify invoking unethical behavior. It just means that you have to find other ways to spread the word and advertise.

________________________________

Arch might respond to all of this with "But pseudonyms are insincere, and if users want to use them, therefore they are engaging in desired insincerity" to which I'd say that it's not the same thing. People want insincerity on the Onion with respect to its content. The same can't be said for review sites. Just because you might argue one piece of a system is engaging in something insincere doesn't mean the rest of the system condones insincerity in turn. Besides, people don't use pseudonyms because they wish to engage in insincerity. They typically do it because they want privacy and/or protection. Am I an insincere person because I am hiding my body with clothing in public?