Trolling for investigative purposes: ethical?

Great Debates
1

Maybe this is more of an IMHO. If the M-ds determine it is, feel free to move it.

I had a brilliant idea the other day: as a bit of momentary distraction and a way to get laughs, I’d go trolling on a well-known board of a certain political persuasion where the members are known for their stridence in support of their cause.

Basically, I’d post the most stubtly (in the context of the particular forum) inflammatory material I could find, and see what kind of responses I got.

I’d then write a short article detailing some of the goofier exchanges, and post in on my own website, for the edification and self-congratulatory smirks of my readers, who generally share my own political persuasion.

If you don’t get the idea, it goes something like this:

In an article on, say, DailyKos, detailing the case against the torture of detainees, I’d make a post generally agreeing with the sentiments of the OP, but in the most ridiculous and stereotypically bleeding-heart terms possible, eg: “Instead of fighting al Qaeda, we should be paying more attention to all of the things we’ve done to them that made them attack us! Those people who died on 9/11 were all tools of the military industrial complex, anyway.”

I’d then capture any head-nodding agreements I got for future ridicule.

So is this ethical?

I’m not completely opposed to trolling, because it can occasionally be pretty funny. Still, I’m generally agin’ it when it’s sole purpose is to cause consternation and disrupt discussion.

In this case, though, I think what I’m doing lies somewhere between amateur investigative journalism and prank calling.

Your thoughts?

2

Seems pointless to me, also ‘it was a social experiment’ is a pretty well-worn and lame excuse for trolling. All you’re talking about is posting some stuff on a message board; assuming you’re not in contravention of their rules, why would ethical worries even enter the frame?

Also, I can’t help thinking you’ve not chosen the best place to debate this…

3

There is no ‘amateur investigative journalism’ in what you propose. It’s just trolling for kicks.

4

OK. Your stated purpose would be to lie for the purposes of inciting the members of an on-line community to overreact so that you could harvest their comments for the purpose of pointing at them and laughing? I fail to see anything “investigative” in your scenario. On any open community, you can find people with extreme views, poor writing skills, and excitable natures. It hardly requires “investigation” to discover that such people exist. And, since you would be deliberately planting bait to seek out the poorest examples of such a community, you would be doing nothing more than reinforcing your own prejudices about the group.

Just how “investigative” (or humorous) would you find Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” on-the-street interviews if they were conducted in sheltered group homes for folks with mental disabilities? (As it is, the “Jaywalking” segment interviews dozens of people–many of whom are deliberately playing dumb–in order to harvest four or five dumb quotes. The difference would be that the “Jaywalking” targets can see the microphone and the cameraman while you would be going after unsuspecting victims.)

And, of course, you will NOT bring back any of your gaffed fish to the SDMB.

5

Upon further reflection, it was a really dumb idea.

To save face, I’m going to blame it on the exquisite boredom of being the only person in the office over Thanksgiving week.

I’m going to play some more Tetris now.

6

Oh, sure. Blame it on the Russions. :rolleyes: