Think of all the review sites out there . . . I’ve worked with several companies who’ve had angry people create multiple identities in an effort to do a bad review on one company. One bad review on a restaurant and I start looking the other way. What about this?

Something must be done here, but I’m just not sure what exactly that is.

BTW – When we determine that someone who has written some kind of testimonial about a company is in fact a representative of that company, we 1) call them out 2) ask that they come clean 3) remove them from the site if they fail to do so. In almost every occasion, they have come clean and end up looking like jerks – that’s the price you pay, right?

I agree with you completely, however about using your secret identity to cause harm to someone. Why would you do such a thing, I don’t know.

So, if I’m interpreting your comment correctly, I think your concern of WBP using this tragedy as link bait is a bit unfounded.

In any setting at any time this is a bad combo.

It wasn’t the use of a fake identity that was the problem. It wasn’t the use of an avatar that was the problem. It was the bad combination.

I wonder how much of the blame could be transferred to the parents here? Would you let your child hang out with the bad elements of society? Would you allow them free reign where ever they went? Would you at least try to arm them with some sort of sense of reality (the dangers lurking anywhere and sadly everywhere).

MySpace wasn’t the problem here. It’s easy to blame a tool or the system for the bad apples in society. But when are we going to simply shift the blame to those that deserve it. Lori Drew has been taken to task. Harassment was her crime really, the effects of that… well tragic.

Personally I don’t have a problem with fake avatars/personalities. But I do not and could never offer them a fraction of trust that a “real” personality could gain.

I would be interested to hear Sarah Bird from SEOmoz’s legal opinion on how this might effect certain online marketers’ methods.

In the UK there is already legislation banning the use of false identities to promote products and while it doesn’t deal with tragedies such as this girl’s death, it would seem to point the way to a happy median far laws governing online representations.

On a side note I’m happy to use my real name for my online presence, but use a costume for my avatar pictures on my profiles (sorry to burst the bubble for anyone who thought I actually was a giant chicken). Much like QualityGal, I wonder where the line would have to be drawn and whether an online identity register as the result of US decision to introduce some kind of Megan’s Law, would try to expand to require registration from users outside the US who wish to use American based website. How do you draw juridictional lines on the world wide web?

I think using fake avatars and pen names is fine when this is made known up front. It’s when the motive is deception that the problem arises. When the motive is purposeful pain and suffering to another person, then all bets are off and I have no problem with there being laws in place to protect people from being victimized. I don’t, however, believe one mass swoop of laws making fake IDs a felony solves any problems. I can’t stand it when the whole class is punished for something one stupid person does.