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 we

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.)