Are they right?

What do webmasters think about sockpuppets?

[jonathanbishop]

In their book on Online Communities, Margaret Levine Young and John Levine say about members of online communities who have been banned from the site who subsequently rejoin with a sock puppet account, "if the sock puppet doesn't post disruptive messages, it doesn't matter whether the banned member has rejoined your community - she's not causing any trouble"

Are they right? Should online community managers respect people's democratic right to free speech and freedom to associate with others, or should the managers of these services be allowed to decide which customers they serve and which they don't?

[Matt Probert]

All I can think of is mint sauce.

(showing my age)

Matt

[LifeinAsia]

The concept of "free speech" is often misconstrued to mean that a person can say anything he/she wants and that everyone else must be forced to listen to it.

The reality is that (in the U.S. anyway), "free speech" means that Congress (i.e., the government) will not pass any law "abridging the freedom of speech..."

So my understanding is that as a private entity (e.g., my online community on my web site), I have complete authority to censor anything I see fit.

[rogerd]

If a problem member decides to mend his/her ways and post responsibly under a new ID, I think most forum owners would leave the new ID alone... unless the member flaunts their history. Sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Sometimes there's too much history associated with a screen name, and a fresh start is needed to usher in an era of good behavior.

In my experience, unfortunately, it usually seems to be a matter of time before the returning member reverts to the same problematic activity that got them exiled in the first place. Still, hope springs eternal. In my forums, I usually will give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens.

[stajer]

In my experience, problem users are problem users. They don't amend their ways. If you banned them once, why wait for them to cause you angst again? Ban them again and go about your merry way.

[jonathanbishop]

Well in Europe we have the European Convention on Human Rights, binding on public authorities, including courts in the UK, so theoretically binding on online communities if they are hosted by an emination of the state (e.g. the BBC) or private undertakings (e.g. the online community manager) if they are taken to court.

Could trigger happy webmasters that delete messages that express opinions different from theirs be infringing someones freedom of expression? Could a flame war against a specific member be subjecting them to inhumane and degrading treatment? And could publishing a photo of someone you saw on a night out on Flickr or a video of them on YouTube be infringing their right to a private life?

[rogerd]

>>problem users are problem users

I think that is mostly true. The ones that can be rehabilitated are those that got off on the wrong foot, or didn't understand the community standards of behavior. Online communities vary a lot, and sometimes members arrive and flame others or use inappropriate language because their past community experiences were quite different. Certainly, the longer the history of bad behavior the lower the probability of successful rehabilitation.

One other indicator is whether the second identity failed to behave. At that point, further attempts at behavior modification are pointless and it's time to bring out the full array of banning tools.