Nor do I think that sock puppetry is wrong, exactly, though it sure
is embarassing if you get caught praising yourself. The trouble with
John Lott was not that he used sock puppets -- including on my site;
it's that his research problems made it impossible to rely on his
results. The sock puppetry was just the most excruciatingly publicly
humiliating aspect of it all.
Nonetheless, I doubt we'll be hearing much more about his sock
puppets from the left. And a good thing, too, as it's more sad than
relevant.
Advertisement
Why bother faking identities to praise yourself on critical blogs when you're already making it, man? It's a lot of work for very little benefit, and it's fairly easy to get caught. And when you're caught, the cost in humiliation alone cannot pass the cost-benefit analysis. It's beyond me.
I don't think sock puppetry is always wrong. Sometimes anonymous and pseudonymous comments are no problem, and they've always been part of the Internet/chat room/blog world. But, while not unethical all the time, I think it's a better policy to just say who you are and be consistent. And, if you're a public figure or prominent blogger, you should be honest with people about who you are when commenting or you risk losing a ton of trust.
Recommended
Advertisement
Plus, it's so dang embarrassing to get caught praising yourself. Why go there?
To be fair, Greenwald has denied that the comments in praise of him--emanating from the same IP address and four different identities-- were not written by him.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member