4 ms·

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 w

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.
    - kodt 7y ago
      Ok so lets say they do nothing, the business receiving fake negative reviews closes as a result and people lose their jobs. Was that the morally superior choice?
      - jshevek 7y ago
        Cherry picking unlikely hypothetical scenarios (this is GR, not yelp) is a bad strategy for making a binary determination of the morality of a choice. When you ask "Was that the morally superior choice", what set of options are you considering? In my prior statement, I simply claimed that it can be argued that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system.
        6181F056 7y ago
        "It can be argued" is a completely vacuous statement. Anything can be argued. Your comparison to Yelp is equally specious because Goodreads is not the endangered party -- it's the author. Given the attacks happening, their livelihood is already threatened. So your hypothetical pacifism re: the sanctity of the voting system only guarantees the attackers will win.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    > 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 People who post fake negative reviews also use this argument, combined with allegations of moral inferiority of their target.
jshevek 7y ago
What is the morally correct action if fake positive reviews outnumber fake negative reviews? Should we then post more fake negative reviews to offset the fake positive reviews?

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.
  - kodt 7y ago
    Ok so lets say they do nothing, the business receiving fake negative reviews closes as a result and people lose their jobs. Was that the morally superior choice?
    - jshevek 7y ago
      Cherry picking unlikely hypothetical scenarios (this is GR, not yelp) is a bad strategy for making a binary determination of the morality of a choice. When you ask "Was that the morally superior choice", what set of options are you considering? In my prior statement, I simply claimed that it can be argued that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system.
      - 6181F056 7y ago
        "It can be argued" is a completely vacuous statement. Anything can be argued. Your comparison to Yelp is equally specious because Goodreads is not the endangered party -- it's the author. Given the attacks happening, their livelihood is already threatened. So your hypothetical pacifism re: the sanctity of the voting system only guarantees the attackers will win.
- jshevek 7y ago
  > 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 People who post fake negative reviews also use this argument, combined with allegations of moral inferiority of their target.

jshevek 7y ago

What is the morally correct action if fake positive reviews outnumber fake negative reviews? Should we then post more fake negative reviews to offset the fake positive reviews?