7 ms·

What exactly is wrong with a famous person having sock puppets? The opposition to this sort of thing defies logic to me. To quote a comment on Metafilter...

What exactly is wrong with a famous person having sock puppets? The opposition to this sort of thing defies logic to me. To quote a comment on Metafilter... Scott, if you wanted to sign up for Metafilter to defend your writing, that would have been fine. If you wanted to sign up for Metafilter and be incognito as just another user, that'd be fine too. Doing both simultaneously isn't; pretending to be a third party and high-fiving yourself by proxy is a pretty sketchy move and a serious violation of general community expectations about identity management around here. So he's acknowledging the value of being able to present opinions as "just another person" and acknowledging the value of the author being able to post as himself but then he says those two are wrong in combination? Doesn't really make sense. As for being dishonest I don't see a sock puppet as any more or less dishonest as any other screen name. And who exactly is hurt? At best a sock puppet makes it look like the author has one supporter more than he actually has. So what? No one's going to be swayed by one supporter. Moreover I think someone like Scott Adams should have the right to defend themselves without people automatically dismissing it as self preservation. In the end a sock puppet is just a way for a famous author to present his ideas without bringing his fame into the conversation and I don't see what's wrong with that.

yuhong 16y ago
It is called astroturfing and it is a bad thing to do.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  Well no it's actually not. Astroturfing would be if he had 100 sock puppets.
  - yuhong 16y ago
    Yea, that would have been seriously bad. In this case it would not be anywhere near as bad, but it is still bad.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      But that goes back to my original question of "Why is it bad?" The point I'm trying to make is we shouldn't automatically assume something is bad just because our first instinct says so. In this case our first instinct reacts to misleading people because that's usually a bad thing. Usually it's used to hurt people. But in the case of Scott Adams his sock puppet isn't hurting anyone. So it's neutral at best. So then the question is between neutral and acceptable. For this to be acceptable it has to do some good. There are cases when lying does an overall good so the questions is whether this is one of those cases. If you hold truth as a value than this does a societal good. Because many people would automatically dismiss a defense of Scott Adams ideas coming from Scott Adams. Those same people would listen to an anonymous person. So Scott Adams' sock puppet allows his ideas to get a fair hearing in the debate. Which is why I don't see the evil in a famous person having a sock puppet (I feel the need to say I AM NOT a Scott Adams sock puppet...just for the record)
      - plannedchaos 16y ago
        I am.
slapshot 16y ago
In the Reddit thread, another MeFi administrator sums it pretty nicely: MetaFilter has rules about that sort of thing because it wants to encourage a certain kind of community. Other sites may have different rules. "On Metafilter, specifically, deliberately impersonating a disinterested third party to get in arguments about yourself or something you've got a personal stake in is a problem, yes. It's anathema to any kind of sense of community and continuity of identity. Other places can have their own rules or lack thereof. The heterogeneity of the Internet is part of what makes it interesting, and certainly no one is or should be compelled to be a member of Metafilter or Reddit or any other site the rules or community guidelines of which they don't like." Direct link: http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/gqzgx/dilbert_creator_outed_for_using_sock_puppets_on/c1pn37l http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/gqzgx/dilbert_creato...
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  There's a difference between rules/law and morality. I don't dispute what he did was against the Metafilter rules but that doesn't in itself make it wrong from a moral standpoint. At least no more wrong than people who post off topic stuff on HN or any number of other minor infractions.
  - Sizlak 16y ago
    You could argue that it's morally wrong because most other Mefi-ists assume that the rules are being followed, so breaking the rules is deceptive. But Metafilter discussions bore the hell out of me, so I don't really know what the hell they think.
  - joshmillard 16y ago
    As far as mefi's guildlines go and my job responsibilities go, morality doesn't really come into it. I don't consider it my mandate to ensure or enforce moral correctness or any such thing. That what he did was against the site's rules and a violation of the Metafilter community's shared expectations of behavior on the site is why it was a problem on Metafilter, and why we contacted him to tell him to cut it out.
coderdude 16y ago
It would be similar to Matt Cutts registering some username and defending Google's efforts at defeating webspam (or telling us that Matt Cutts is a pretty cool guy). Surely any opposition to this doesn't defy logic, so what is the difference? He didn't merely create a fake account and post under it. Scott Adams created a fake persona and used it to help persuade people when it comes to things related to Scott Adams.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I'm saying I think the fact that he defended himself is exactly what makes it moral. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634
  - coderdude 16y ago
    That doesn't make it moral. >>"Because many people would automatically dismiss a defense of Scott Adams ideas coming from Scott Adams" (from the link) He needn't deceive people in order to defend his own case. That doesn't make any sense. If people want to take what he says with a grain of salt because he has an agenda that is their decision to make -- and rightfully so. Being deceptive so that people won't think you're being deceptive is illogical.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      But see your logic is exactly the problem. Ideas are opinion. Agenda doesn't matter when you are expressing an opinion. Because the opinion is biased by its nature. It matters when you are claiming to express a fact because then your agenda might lead you to pick and choose what facts you give. Facts require impartiality and that's why having an agenda is relevant there. But Adams wasn't giving facts he was giving an opinion so his agenda is irrelevant and the fact that you would dismiss his opinion because of some perceived agenda demonstrates exactly why he'd need a sock puppet for his ideas to get a fair hearing.
      - coderdude 16y ago
bpeebles 16y ago
There's nothing wrong with a famous person having psudeo-anonymous accounts that aren't tied to their real identity, but to then defend themselves as if they were not connected... Well, that's just not cool. Cortex, who posted what you quoted, was drawing that line. Be anonymous and on Metafilter, but avoid commenting on yourself as somebody else. Or he can be himself (which lots of "famous" people have done both on Reddit and Metafilter, and HN for that matter.) At best a sock puppet makes it look like the author has one supporter more than he actually has. So what? No one's going to be swayed by one supporter. Moreover I think someone like Scott Adams should have the right to defend themselves without people automatically dismissing it as self preservation. I'm actually kind of confused why you think it isn't a problem to use dishonestly, since speaking as if you're not person X is dishonest, isn't "harmful" in a community or to a discussion. And, honestly, I can't think of many reasons I'd want the famous person to lie to defend themselves. If it's defensible and they're famous, lots of intelligent and well-spoken people will be there to their defense. See John Lott/Mary Rosh and other cases where people have been found out. (Or authors using fake names to give 5-star reviews on Amazon; or game devs posting reviews with fake names on metacritic.)
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  First on the whether it's wrong I wrote a whole big thing here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 But on your point about letting other people jump in and defend him I don't agree with you. When Scott Adams posts something I assume he's thought through what he said. So while a bunch of people might agree with him they won't have thought the issue through as well as he has. So it's entirely plausible that he could defend his ideas better than other people could. As far as things like Amazon reviews or Game reviews that's a completely different thing because the person doing that is trying to get money out of other people. So if they are wrong and the game/book/whatever doesn't deserve a five star review they'll have caused harm to the purchaser. Adams is just defending ideas which doesn't do such harm.
MaysonL 16y ago
What do you think of authors going pseudonymously onto Amazon and posting 5-star reviews of their work? Of companies doing that for their products? Of political astroturfing? Sock puppetting by a famous author is toward the least slimy end of a pretty slimy continuum.
moron4hire 16y ago
hmmm, ammonia is good, so is bleach, put 'em together and noooooo

yuhong 16y ago

It is called astroturfing and it is a bad thing to do.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
Well no it's actually not. Astroturfing would be if he had 100 sock puppets.
- yuhong 16y ago
  Yea, that would have been seriously bad. In this case it would not be anywhere near as bad, but it is still bad.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    But that goes back to my original question of "Why is it bad?" The point I'm trying to make is we shouldn't automatically assume something is bad just because our first instinct says so. In this case our first instinct reacts to misleading people because that's usually a bad thing. Usually it's used to hurt people. But in the case of Scott Adams his sock puppet isn't hurting anyone. So it's neutral at best. So then the question is between neutral and acceptable. For this to be acceptable it has to do some good. There are cases when lying does an overall good so the questions is whether this is one of those cases. If you hold truth as a value than this does a societal good. Because many people would automatically dismiss a defense of Scott Adams ideas coming from Scott Adams. Those same people would listen to an anonymous person. So Scott Adams' sock puppet allows his ideas to get a fair hearing in the debate. Which is why I don't see the evil in a famous person having a sock puppet (I feel the need to say I AM NOT a Scott Adams sock puppet...just for the record)
    - plannedchaos 16y ago
      I am.

slapshot 16y ago

In the Reddit thread, another MeFi administrator sums it pretty nicely: MetaFilter has rules about that sort of thing because it wants to encourage a certain kind of community. Other sites may have different rules. "On Metafilter, specifically, deliberately impersonating a disinterested third party to get in arguments about yourself or something you've got a personal stake in is a problem, yes. It's anathema to any kind of sense of community and continuity of identity. Other places can have their own rules or lack thereof. The heterogeneity of the Internet is part of what makes it interesting, and certainly no one is or should be compelled to be a member of Metafilter or Reddit or any other site the rules or community guidelines of which they don't like." Direct link: http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/gqzgx/dilbert_creator_outed_for_using_sock_puppets_on/c1pn37l http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/gqzgx/dilbert_creato...

TomOfTTB 16y ago
There's a difference between rules/law and morality. I don't dispute what he did was against the Metafilter rules but that doesn't in itself make it wrong from a moral standpoint. At least no more wrong than people who post off topic stuff on HN or any number of other minor infractions.
- Sizlak 16y ago
  You could argue that it's morally wrong because most other Mefi-ists assume that the rules are being followed, so breaking the rules is deceptive. But Metafilter discussions bore the hell out of me, so I don't really know what the hell they think.
- joshmillard 16y ago
  As far as mefi's guildlines go and my job responsibilities go, morality doesn't really come into it. I don't consider it my mandate to ensure or enforce moral correctness or any such thing. That what he did was against the site's rules and a violation of the Metafilter community's shared expectations of behavior on the site is why it was a problem on Metafilter, and why we contacted him to tell him to cut it out.

coderdude 16y ago

It would be similar to Matt Cutts registering some username and defending Google's efforts at defeating webspam (or telling us that Matt Cutts is a pretty cool guy). Surely any opposition to this doesn't defy logic, so what is the difference? He didn't merely create a fake account and post under it. Scott Adams created a fake persona and used it to help persuade people when it comes to things related to Scott Adams.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'm saying I think the fact that he defended himself is exactly what makes it moral. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634
- coderdude 16y ago
  That doesn't make it moral. >>"Because many people would automatically dismiss a defense of Scott Adams ideas coming from Scott Adams" (from the link) He needn't deceive people in order to defend his own case. That doesn't make any sense. If people want to take what he says with a grain of salt because he has an agenda that is their decision to make -- and rightfully so. Being deceptive so that people won't think you're being deceptive is illogical.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    But see your logic is exactly the problem. Ideas are opinion. Agenda doesn't matter when you are expressing an opinion. Because the opinion is biased by its nature. It matters when you are claiming to express a fact because then your agenda might lead you to pick and choose what facts you give. Facts require impartiality and that's why having an agenda is relevant there. But Adams wasn't giving facts he was giving an opinion so his agenda is irrelevant and the fact that you would dismiss his opinion because of some perceived agenda demonstrates exactly why he'd need a sock puppet for his ideas to get a fair hearing.
    - coderdude 16y ago

bpeebles 16y ago

There's nothing wrong with a famous person having psudeo-anonymous accounts that aren't tied to their real identity, but to then defend themselves as if they were not connected... Well, that's just not cool. Cortex, who posted what you quoted, was drawing that line. Be anonymous and on Metafilter, but avoid commenting on yourself as somebody else. Or he can be himself (which lots of "famous" people have done both on Reddit and Metafilter, and HN for that matter.) At best a sock puppet makes it look like the author has one supporter more than he actually has. So what? No one's going to be swayed by one supporter. Moreover I think someone like Scott Adams should have the right to defend themselves without people automatically dismissing it as self preservation. I'm actually kind of confused why you think it isn't a problem to use dishonestly, since speaking as if you're not person X is dishonest, isn't "harmful" in a community or to a discussion. And, honestly, I can't think of many reasons I'd want the famous person to lie to defend themselves. If it's defensible and they're famous, lots of intelligent and well-spoken people will be there to their defense. See John Lott/Mary Rosh and other cases where people have been found out. (Or authors using fake names to give 5-star reviews on Amazon; or game devs posting reviews with fake names on metacritic.)

TomOfTTB 16y ago
First on the whether it's wrong I wrote a whole big thing here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 But on your point about letting other people jump in and defend him I don't agree with you. When Scott Adams posts something I assume he's thought through what he said. So while a bunch of people might agree with him they won't have thought the issue through as well as he has. So it's entirely plausible that he could defend his ideas better than other people could. As far as things like Amazon reviews or Game reviews that's a completely different thing because the person doing that is trying to get money out of other people. So if they are wrong and the game/book/whatever doesn't deserve a five star review they'll have caused harm to the purchaser. Adams is just defending ideas which doesn't do such harm.

MaysonL 16y ago

What do you think of authors going pseudonymously onto Amazon and posting 5-star reviews of their work? Of companies doing that for their products? Of political astroturfing? Sock puppetting by a famous author is toward the least slimy end of a pretty slimy continuum.

moron4hire 16y ago

hmmm, ammonia is good, so is bleach, put 'em together and noooooo