Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum FLOGs - Fake Blogs

Interesting technique for manipulation and pseudo-presentation of information.

This is similar to astro-turfing.

I wonder if one could get the same function by using legitimate forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_blog

What do these mean for the Internet?

(By "Internet," I mean "us.")

"Wal-Mart vs. the blogosphere"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15319926/

How do you communicate when predators are trying to corrupt the process of communication?

FOST? Fake post? Maybe there's already a term for this. Fread? Fake Thread? You know, somebody's selling a product and he either creates a sock account or has a buddy go through the motions of a "dialog" about a subject area.

"Sock Account" or "Sock Puppet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

From the wiki:
"The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym ... is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer or acting under their control for their benefit."

How long till we have fake discussion threads?

There are people who actually justify this reprehensible activity!

This is a real scientific question.

How do we communicate when there are people trying to subvert the process of communication? How do we educate ourselves when there are those who are trying to subvert our education?

FF-- Do you think discussion threads are really educational? Surely it would be necessary to check possible facts for accuracy along more conventional lines before believing what is read on-line? And most people would not expect privacy to be observed on discussion threads etc. would they?

If real privacy is required there are still lines of communication that are relatively free from interference, but they mostly take a lot longer than typing on line!

"Do you think discussion threads are really educational?"

I'm not sure whether that's the point. In any case, this is a discussion thread. Do you ever learn anything in a discussion thread?

More to the point here is this: You're talking to me about something and you assume in your response that I'm actually interested in this topic and interested in conversing about and sharing ideas about it and hearing about other people's ideas.

What if this were just a ploy to get you to buy alternative discussion thread software? What if I don't really care about this forum or about you or what you think - but I just want you or someone else to buy my software or what have you.

Now of course we can say, oh, well, buyer beware! Just because people are gullible or stupid or desperate enough to follow Peter Popoff or Syvlia Browne doesn't make PP or SB less odious.

Just because some people are gullible enough to look at a fake discussion thread or a fake blog post and believe it - yes, on the one hand I can think, "What a bunch of buffoons," but on the other hand I can be offended that these "people" are taking advantage of the gullible. Also, were to to happen on a serious board, I might be irritated that they were detracting from the potential of the board. Of course, if the board didn't have a great many discussions, perhaps it would be no great loss. OTOH, with so many discussions not geared to actually "discussing" but to either proselytizing or selling product, it could explain the situation.

In any case, people are looking for 3rd party experiences and outside opinions - that's a good thing, a useful thing, a valuable thing. Lying about being a disinterested party smacks of fraud.

FF said:
"Just because some people are gullible enough to look at a fake discussion thread or a fake blog post and believe it - yes, on the one hand I can think, "What a bunch of buffoons," but on the other hand I can be offended that these "people" are taking advantage of the gullible. Also, were to to happen on a serious board, I might be irritated that they were detracting from the potential of the board. Of course, if the board didn't have a great many discussions, perhaps it would be no great loss. OTOH, with so many discussions not geared to actually "discussing" but to either proselytizing or selling product, it could explain the situation."

I think that's the point. There is no immediate reality in a discussion thread. We have to take everything we read in good faith whilst at the same time allowing ourself to remember that the various posters may be genuine 'seekers of truth' or hucksters of the first order.

It does not really matter though. It may be possible to learn from a huckster at the superficial level of learning that one gains in a discussion thread. I have to admit I have learned a lot that I have found interesting on this forum, but I also research further if an item has interested me, and I think it would be disingenuous to do otherwise.

Caveat emptor maybe!

Here's the thing: it's not immediately clear in all cases when this sort of unethical behavior is being practiced. Instead, they waste the time of people in various groups.

It would be good to learn a little beyond the superficial level of "this guys is just a salesman and a complete dirtbag." That's not the reason I spend time in a forum.

There is a less important notion here - in addition to corrupting the process of communication, these people are essentially wasting people's time. It's analogous to those sleazy companies that pay people minimum wage to call your house and disturb by trying to get you to buy something you don't need or want.

Of course this is a small point compared to the more real threat to communication. I wonder if there is a mathematical way to represent the spread of disinformation or the inhibition of actual information through these mechanisms - or some way to otherwise quantify the damage they the cause. Of course the perpetrators of fake blogs and fake discussions don't care about that, as they're just trying to make money.

Topics that appear from new (or even old) users that have some very trivial significance to the group, but have product references embedded should be removed or moved to a "dear jerkoff" section.

Yes. These people are the intellectual and (im)moral equivalent of telemarketers.

Hey All,

Check this out.....

http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2006/02/fake-forum-sites-as-cloaking-function.html

Hey Nitric TFF

Your post was really interesting. Thanks for the link.

hahaha ... bingo!

There is a user named "Saron K."

Please delete her spam and "her" fake account.

You can see her the exact post in a variety of places:

http://www.cpanet.com/cpa_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18509&PN=1
http://www.autism-pdd.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33347&get=last
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/B...s_as_an_un.html

Among others. Her M.O. is consistent in all venues.
Create new user.
Go into an existing thread.
Create a new message by copying the contents of the first message in the thread and then saying the exact same grammatically incorrect message:

"Such a very amazing link!
Thanks you for the post."


And then following up with the link to a sleazy bunch of low lifes in the following text:
"Movies Online Free"