4 ms·

Some people are trying to battle against negative fake reviews by posting positive fake reviews. It's not clear to me that they are as morally superior as they

Some people are trying to battle against negative fake reviews by posting positive fake reviews. It's not clear to me that they are as morally superior as they evidently believe. Edit: The solution is to fix the voting system, not to abuse it further because you believe you are virtuous.

matsemann 7y ago
I hope you see the difference between fake praise and harrassment. "Both sides are wrong" doesn't mean they are equally bad.
- jshevek 7y ago
  That's why I used relative language such as "as morally superior as they evidently believe" Edit: If someone is caught posting fake positive reviews to boost a rating[1], that doesn't make it okay to post fake negative reviews 'to fight the good fight'. [1] As opposed to impugning someone's character via impersonation, as appears to be happening here
- deith 7y ago
  It's not fake praise vs harassment, it's fake praise vs fake criticism. In any case this will make for an excellent marketing campaign. I don't even know what the book is about (I assume something politically charged because of this campaign) but now I know the book!
  - catalogia 7y ago
    It can be [and is] fake criticism and harassment at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive in the slightest.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      Excerpt from the article: "Jason: I saw one troll spoofing your name and picture post an extremely nasty, long-winded comment on Goodreads, discussing intimate details of your family life and making it sound like you want to kill yourself. None of this could be considered a review of your book by any conceivable means, yet Goodreads still hasn't removed it. What's going on here?" I'm really curious how anybody thinks this isn't harassment.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    I do not believe that the author has faked their own fake criticism in this case, but this marketing tactic has been used successfully before by others.
- thiagomgd 7y ago
  That's completely true. Even though I don't agree with fake positive reviews, I have seen enough harassment against authors and books
danShumway 7y ago
Yes, but: > The solution is to fix the voting system How do the people posting positive fake reviews do that? They're responding to fake reviews in the only way they can, by offsetting them. Yes, there's a better solution that Goodreads can implement, but only Goodreads can implement it; not any of the commenters you criticize here. Since they can't fix the voting system, and absent any motivation from Goodreads to fix it, is it really bad for them to respond the best way they can using the only tools they have available? After all, if the voting system is widely abused by everyone to the point where it becomes a dumpster fire, maybe that will force Goodreads to care.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I did not claim they were bad. From their own words, some of them evidently believe they are not just morally superior to the people posting fake negative reviews, but vastly morally superior. It is not obvious that this is the case.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Let me rephrase that -- is there a more moral action they could take? If burning the review section to the ground with garbage content forces Goodreads to take notice, I could see someone arguing that it is a morally productive, good action to take -- not just neutral, but in fact morally superior to any of the complaining we're doing on HN, since Goodreads is 100% not going to care about anything we write here. I'm not certain I agree with that perspective, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I'm somewhat cautious about making a strong claim that offsetting fake reviews isn't a morally desirable action.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      > Let me rephrase that -- is there a more moral action they could take? This depends on your basic values, but one could definitely argue that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system. Only sometimes do two wrongs make a right, and I'm not convinced this is one of those times.

matsemann 7y ago

I hope you see the difference between fake praise and harrassment. "Both sides are wrong" doesn't mean they are equally bad.

jshevek 7y ago
That's why I used relative language such as "as morally superior as they evidently believe" Edit: If someone is caught posting fake positive reviews to boost a rating[1], that doesn't make it okay to post fake negative reviews 'to fight the good fight'. [1] As opposed to impugning someone's character via impersonation, as appears to be happening here
deith 7y ago
It's not fake praise vs harassment, it's fake praise vs fake criticism. In any case this will make for an excellent marketing campaign. I don't even know what the book is about (I assume something politically charged because of this campaign) but now I know the book!
- catalogia 7y ago
  It can be [and is] fake criticism and harassment at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive in the slightest.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    Excerpt from the article: "Jason: I saw one troll spoofing your name and picture post an extremely nasty, long-winded comment on Goodreads, discussing intimate details of your family life and making it sound like you want to kill yourself. None of this could be considered a review of your book by any conceivable means, yet Goodreads still hasn't removed it. What's going on here?" I'm really curious how anybody thinks this isn't harassment.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I do not believe that the author has faked their own fake criticism in this case, but this marketing tactic has been used successfully before by others.
thiagomgd 7y ago
That's completely true. Even though I don't agree with fake positive reviews, I have seen enough harassment against authors and books

danShumway 7y ago

Yes, but: > The solution is to fix the voting system How do the people posting positive fake reviews do that? They're responding to fake reviews in the only way they can, by offsetting them. Yes, there's a better solution that Goodreads can implement, but only Goodreads can implement it; not any of the commenters you criticize here. Since they can't fix the voting system, and absent any motivation from Goodreads to fix it, is it really bad for them to respond the best way they can using the only tools they have available? After all, if the voting system is widely abused by everyone to the point where it becomes a dumpster fire, maybe that will force Goodreads to care.

jshevek 7y ago
I did not claim they were bad. From their own words, some of them evidently believe they are not just morally superior to the people posting fake negative reviews, but vastly morally superior. It is not obvious that this is the case.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Let me rephrase that -- is there a more moral action they could take? If burning the review section to the ground with garbage content forces Goodreads to take notice, I could see someone arguing that it is a morally productive, good action to take -- not just neutral, but in fact morally superior to any of the complaining we're doing on HN, since Goodreads is 100% not going to care about anything we write here. I'm not certain I agree with that perspective, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I'm somewhat cautious about making a strong claim that offsetting fake reviews isn't a morally desirable action.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    > Let me rephrase that -- is there a more moral action they could take? This depends on your basic values, but one could definitely argue that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system. Only sometimes do two wrongs make a right, and I'm not convinced this is one of those times.