I’ve mentioned the phenomena of sock puppets in a couple of previous posts. Sock puppets refer to bloggers or readers who post comments on blogs and other news/information websites (including Wikipedia) under a false identity in order to promote a certain viewpoint or create the illusion of having strength in numbers regarding that viewpoint. The anonymity of the internet, combined with the miracles of web 2.0 technology, allows these puppeteers to covertly spread propaganda under false monikers. This poses a threat to the reputation of Web 2.0 technology as a reliable news source and undermines the public debate and critical group reasoning that the comment and forum sections of these sites are trying to foster. The perpetrator in this article (http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=3038&z=263) was a GOP blogger and campaign director who harassed and intimidated bloggers on a liberal site through almost 80 posts under a false identity.
Fortunately, netroots activists have acknowledged that sock puppets are a major threat to the health of web 2.0 and have committed to using whatever means possible to expose and eradicate them. The liberal bloggers in the article were able to trace the identity of the sock puppet because the email address he listed was the same one he used in high school, but it’s not always so easy. I know that Wikipedia has traced sock puppets using their IP addresses (sometimes even exposing covert attempts by the US government to protect its reputation via propaganda-esque edtis on unflattering posts), and there are probably other crazy ways to trace the sources of internet posts that I don’t even know about it. It’s definitely an issue for web 2.0 and will probably continue to be for quite awhile, but overcoming denial is the first step to recovery…
It seems that the anonymity of the internet creates mixed consequences for infodemocracy. On the one hand, it is the ability to remain anonymous that has allowed whistleblowers the chance to reveal classified or otherwise sensitive information to the world at large. This contrasts with the way most mainstream media operates; they often choose to withhold sensitive information to the public because they fear the wrath of government subpeonas or, even worse, their advertisers who pay the bills. This is the reason why the New York Times knew about Bush’s widespread wiretapping a year before it was printed and publicly acknowledged. Which is fucked up. But when whistleblowers don’t have an obligation to reveal their identities – and even have their identities protected by encryption software, a la Wikileaks – they are more likely to publicize this kind of information, which I dare say is good for nurturing a truly informed public. More often than not the information that the government doens’t want us to know is some of the most important knowledge we need to know.
Yet this same anonymity allows sock puppets to terrorize websites, misrepresenting public opinion and mitigating the effectiveness of the internet as a forum for public reasoning. Are we smart enough to ignore these sock puppets? Do they do enough damage to actually undermine the usefulness of these technologies? Or, like with all web 2.0, is it just too much of a mixed bag and too soon to tell? Yeah, that sounds about right.
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=3038&z=26