The Hand That Controls the Sock Puppet Could Get Slapped

[lagilman]

An article of interest, from the New York Times...

The Hand That Controls the Sock Puppet Could Get Slapped.
By BRAD STONE and MATT RICHTEL
Published: July 16, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, July 15 — On the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog — or the chief executive of a Fortune 500 company. Or so thought John Mackey, the chief executive of Whole Foods Market, who used a fictional identity on the Yahoo message boards for nearly eight years to assail competition and promote his supermarket chain’s stock, according to documents released last week by the Federal Trade Commission.

The rest of the very interesting article is here. It focuses on the corporate aspects, but private citizens should take note as well...

Comments

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

Two things:

1. I just spent a small mint at Whole Foods this weekend...now I feel just a little dirty. Sigh.

2. The best rule of thumb: never put anything into writing (particularly on the web) that you don't want to come back and haunt you later.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

What I would like to know is why this is a big deal? Everyone has an agenda. Perhaps I am missing some key understanding?

[lagilman]

Why is what a big deal? The misdirection and implicit underhandedness of posting under a sockpuppet, which implies a certain level of dishonesty and manipulation, not to mention lack of personal confidence to stand up and take it/dish it like an adult, and therefore raises a question about the basic emotional and/or moral competence of the person sock-puppeting? Or the corporate aspect of it?

If the corporate aspect...well, I could let greeneyedkzin wade into the details, but let's just say that there is (legally) expected to be a certain level of transparency in the dealings of corporate officers, in order to make the Feds (and Euro-side peers) happy. Otherwise you get accusations of, oh, stock manipulation, outright fraud, or all those other things that bring up the spectre of the S.E.C. being cranky, which makes grown Suits weep and wet themselves...

[neadods.livejournal.com]

On the Net nobody may know you're a dog, but they'll still think you're a dork.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

I guess for the first part, I assume that "level of dishonesty and manipulation" as a given. Color me cynical. As for the second, I think dissing your rivals anonymously is puerile, but I don't understand why that kind of stuff would piss the SEC off. Giving false stock info, maybe, but not just dissing.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

I love your icon!

[lagilman]

But it's not "just dissing." It's dissing that could possibly impact the short- and long-term fortunes of a company/stockholders. And it's being done under a false name by someone with a financial interest in the potential results. That will get the SEC to prick up their ears.

It will also be interesting to see the (non-fiscal) legal wavelets to come of this. That especially is where private citizens need to pay attention. How liable is your sock puppet? You aren't as hidden as you might like to think...