How not to make a point.

From "steve" at The Daily Kos:

Everyone, I am pleased to announce a great victory in the little land we call the blogosphere: I was checking out Little Green Footballs (LGF) earlier today, and I noticed that Charles (the head of LGF) seemed to disagree with Instapundit & Lt. Smash over whether the FBI should have apologized to Mayfield over his wrongful arrest and detention.

I impersonated both Instapundit and Lt. Smash in the comments section, and everyone fell for it. People were referring to me as "Professor Reynolds" all over the place. As of now, the entire tone of the comment section has shifted, and a majority appear to be in favor of apologizing. Indeed, some people were lamenting the 'echo chamber' aspect of the website, at least in part, due to my (fake) comments.

The LGF thread is here. (As you'll see, I was a critic of Charles' post, and was sucked in by the imposter.)

My long-running dispute with LGF notwithstanding, this is unacceptable behavior. It should go without saying, but: You are perfectly free to be anonymous on the web, but you are not free to impersonate other people. It's not only wrong, but it can also potentially subject one to legal liability (the claims are tenuous, but libel, false light, trademark, and right of publicity claims are all theoretically possible).

Comments

[James Casey]

Agreed, von - this is just not the way to do things. It's unacceptable. Sure, a little point of pyschological interest, but hardly surprising and certainly not justifying of the means.

[st]

Worth noting that the poll results and comments at Kos are running pretty heavily against the perpetrator. That kind of sock puppetry is undeniably a scumbag move, but "steve" might be figuring out just how much of a tool he really is as we speak.

Oh, and as for the Mayfield apology, why the fuck shouldn't they apologize to him? It costs nothing, and who knows, it might divert a lawsuit or something. They fucked up (or, at least, the computer did), they apologize, they move on, or try to. What's so complicated? It seems the only thing they have to offer in rebuttal over at LGF is "Well, did Saddam apologize when he kidnapped somebody? Did they apologize for killing Daniel Berg? NO!"

[James Casey]

...furthermore, I note there's a poll on Daily Kos (where you link to) on what people think of the action. Majority so far going for 'immoral but not illegal' (not qualified to call the latter, myself).

The poster says (both on LGF and DK): "i didn't impersonate the good professor, i said my name was 'instapundit' and i linked to a relevant post on his site. I never said I was him."

Is a comment even needed here?

[von]

Is a comment even needed here?

I know. He's damned with his own words.

[wilfred]

only 17% of Kossacks agree with the Diarist. This seems to have taken care of itself within it's own community. If only places like LGF policed their morality 1/2 as well...

[sidereal]

I was about to recommend an update to indicate the Kos community's response/lack of sanction. But I re-read and there's no condemnation of DK, just "steve" who still deserves it. Those predisposed to think less of DailyKos will find more grist for the mill here, but that's not von's problem.

[Moe Lane]

"Those predisposed to think less of DailyKos will find more grist for the mill here"

Phhbbth. :)

Moe

[Charles Johnson]

I actually thought Steve's actions were pretty funny.

[Harley]

Okay, that was me. Sorry.

[Moe Lane]

(slightly larger than life scowl)

Don't vex me, Harley.

(/slightly larger than life scowl)

Moe

[Dave Schuler]

They f***** up (or, at least, the computer did),

CSI notwithstanding in the real world fingerprint identification is an art practiced by living, breathing human beings with agendas and failings. Apologize.

[Instapundit]

I agree with Charles. Not a big deal, and fairly humorous.