Editing Reputation management (section)

==Ethics==

The practice of reputation management raises many ethical questions.<ref name="cnet">{{cite web |last=Krazit |first=Tom  |title=A primer on online reputation management |website=CNET |date=January 11, 2011 |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20028997-265.html |access-date=July 13, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Farmer|first=Yanick|date=2018-01-02|title=Ethical Decision Making and Reputation Management in Public Relations|journal=Journal of Media Ethics|volume=33|issue=1|pages=2–13|doi=10.1080/23736992.2017.1401931|s2cid=158618395|issn=2373-6992|url=http://archipel.uqam.ca/12464/1/Ethical%20Decision%20Making%20and%20Reputation%20Management%20in%20Public%20Relations.pdf}}</ref> It is widely disagreed upon where the line for disclosure, astroturfing, and censorship should be drawn. Firms have been known to hire staff to pose as bloggers on third-party sites without disclosing they were paid, and some have been criticized for asking websites to remove negative posts.<ref name="four">{{cite news |url=http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-04-30/do-reputation-management-services-work-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120704104548/http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-04-30/do-reputation-management-services-work-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice |archive-date=July 4, 2012 |title=Do Reputation Management Services Work? |author=John Tozzi |publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.]] |magazine=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]] |date=April 30, 2008 |access-date=August 3, 2012}}</ref><ref name="CW">{{cite news |url = http://www.computerworld.com/article/2537007/networking/online-reputation-management-is-hot----but-is-it-ethical-.html|title = Online reputation management is hot – but is it ethical?|author = Thomas Hoffman|publisher = John Amato|magazine = [[Computerworld]]|date = February 12, 2008|access-date = August 3, 2012}}</ref> The exposure of unethical reputation management may itself be risky to the reputation of a firm that attempts it if known.<ref name=E>{{cite news |url=http://www.economist.com/node/18330435 |title=Reputation management: Glitzkrieg |publisher=[[Economist Group]] |magazine=[[The Economist]] |date=March 10, 2011 |access-date=August 3, 2012}}</ref>

In 2007 Google declared there to be nothing inherently wrong with reputation management,<ref name="wash"/> and even introduced a toolset in 2011 for users to monitor their online identity and request the removal of unwanted content.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kessler |first=Sarah |title=Google Launches Tool for Online Reputation Management |publisher=Mashable |date=June 16, 2011 |url=http://mashable.com/2011/06/16/google-me-on-the-web/ |access-date=July 13, 2012 }}</ref> Many firms are selective about clients they accept. For example, they may avoid individuals who committed violent crimes who are looking to push information about their crimes lower on search results.<ref name="cnet"/>

In 2010, a study showed that [[Naymz]], one of the first Web 2.0 services to provide utilities for Online Reputation Management (ORM), had developed a method to assess the online reputation of its members (RepScore) that was rather easy to deceive. The study found that the highest level of online reputation was easily achieved by engaging a small social group of nine persons who connect with each other and provide reciprocal positive feedbacks and endorsements.<ref>{{ cite conference | first=Marco | last=Lazzari | year=2010 | title=An experiment on the weakness of reputation algorithms used in professional social networks: the case of Naymz | conference=IADIS International Conference e-Society 2010 | location=Porto | url= http://www.iadisportal.org/digital-library/an-experiment-on-the-weakness-of-reputation-algorithms-used-in-professional-social-networks-the-case-of-naymz | pages=519–522 | isbn=978-972-8939-07-6 }}</ref> As of December 2017, Naymz was shut down.

In 2015, the online retailer [[Amazon.com]] sued 1,114 people who were paid to publish fake five-star reviews for products. These reviews were created using a website for [[Macrotasking]], [[Fiverr]].com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/10/dont-be-fooled-by-fake-online-reviews-part-ii/|title=Don't Be Fooled by Fake Online Reviews Part II — Krebs on Security|website=krebsonsecurity.com|date=19 October 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Tuttle |first=Brad |title=Amazon Files Lawsuit Against Writers of Fake Online Reviews |work=Money.com |url=https://money.com/amazon-fake-online-reviews/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210508135304/https://money.com/amazon-fake-online-reviews/ |archive-date=May 8, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/18/amazon-sues-1000-fake-reviewers|title=Amazon sues 1,000 'fake reviewers'|author=Gani, Aisha|work=the Guardian|date=18 October 2015}}</ref> Several other companies offer fake [[Yelp]] and [[Facebook]] reviews, and one journalist amassed five-star reviews for a business that doesn't exist, from social media accounts that have also given overwhelmingly positive reviews to "a chiropractor in [[Arizona]], a hair salon in [[London]], a limo company in [[North Carolina]], a realtor in [[Texas]], and a locksmith in [[Florida]], among other far-flung businesses".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fusion.net/story/191773/i-created-a-fake-business-and-fooled-thousands-of-people-into-thinking-it-was-real/|title=I created a fake business and bought it an amazing online reputation|work=Fusion|access-date=2015-10-20|archive-date=2015-10-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019060422/http://fusion.net/story/191773/i-created-a-fake-business-and-fooled-thousands-of-people-into-thinking-it-was-real/|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2007, a study by the [[University of California Berkeley]] found that some sellers on [[eBay]] were undertaking reputation management by selling products at a discount in exchange for [[positive feedback]] to [[game the system]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Mills |first=Elinor |title=Study: eBay sellers gaming the reputation system? |website=CNET |date=January 11, 2007 |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6149491-7.html |access-date=July 14, 2012}}</ref>

In 2016, the ''[[Washington Post]]'' detailed 25 court cases, at least 15 of which had false addresses for the defendant. The court cases had similar language and the defendant agreed to the injunction by the plaintiff, which allowed the reputation management company to issue takedown notices to Google, Yelp, Leagle, Ripoff Report, various news sites, and other websites.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/dozens-of-suspicious-court-cases-with-missing-defendants-aim-at-getting-web-pages-taken-down-or-deindexed/|title=Dozens of suspicious court cases, with missing defendants, aim at getting web pages taken down or deindexed|last=Volokh|first=Eugene |author2=Paul Alan Levy |date=10 October 2016|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref>