July 1, 2005

6:21 AM

In a previous thread, crunchland said:

knowing people's sock puppets or making IP's public would so let the steam out of threads like this.

And today I was looking over comments on this post. If one hovers over the commentator's name one can see the IP, or resolved domain, of the person who posted. Of course, there's probably ways around this kind of thing, but it might be a good start. Can we have something like this?
posted by gsb to feature requests at 6:21 AM (101 comments total)

Jehovah will not allow it! Jehovah does not like feeling naked and laid bare before the world.










Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah.
posted by God Almighty at 6:33 AM on July 1, 2005

There's probably too many privacy issues and technical dodges with making everyone's IP visible. And, for 95% of users, there is probably no sock puppet issue, making this too wide of a net.

But, for a handful of people who abuse $5 accounts just to troll and stir the pot, there is no reason why Matt shouldn't out them on a case-by-case basis. I think that's the solution--not more coding.
posted by Mid at 6:33 AM on July 1, 2005

I said this, before, there. I fuckin' hate the sockpuppetry, if only because I can't bring myself to care enough about my imaginary friends to keep track, to be honest, but the knowledge that it's happening degrades the whole experience for me, and makes me want to cut flesh and drink blood and ichor.


Metaphorically speaking, of course.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 AM on July 1, 2005

I agree, it's a good idea
posted by matteo at 6:39 AM on July 1, 2005

I visit a vegan forum every day where the IPs of all of the posters are visible, for the same reason, and it's never been a problem. Thousands of people post there, and no one's ever had a complaint about it. I think it's a great idea.
posted by iconomy at 6:41 AM on July 1, 2005

I suppose you could make the "last logged IP" visible on the user page.

But, this would open the door to a lot more stalking then we have now. (I.e., looking people up at work, etc.) Not sure that's such a great idea.

I think Matt should just out the egregious SP's. Or at least threaten to--that would have some deterrent effect. Like people who argue against themselves or in support of themselves by using an SP. Or who troll and post ad hominen stuff but only through an SP. Stupid jokey SP's are not a big deal. (Timeistight could keep doing those.)
posted by Mid at 6:50 AM on July 1, 2005

This is so easily defeated that it's not worth the trouble of implementing, or violating the privacy of the innocent.

Matt should know who the sock puppets are now. If he wants to do something about it himself, he can.
posted by grouse at 6:51 AM on July 1, 2005

So my personal comments posted during the workday can be tied back to my employer? No thanks.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 6:54 AM on July 1, 2005

Look, all I said was that piece of 'alibut was good enough for Jehovah!
posted by sciurus at 6:56 AM on July 1, 2005

I would rather not have my work IP address associated with the things I say here. It's a risky association between my real world life and my online one. Tell me again the point of this?

I've posted on MeFi under a different name before. For personal reasons, I've retired that account and now live under this one. If it really matters what my previous handle was, just ask. (Is this situation not considered a puppet?)

It really seems to me that each handle is it's own personality and if it's disruptive, it should be dealt with.

Maybe I need an example of what exactly we're talking here.... If somebody is accusing "dios" of being an extreme personality of another user? That other user makes comments supportive of dios? Is that what's supposedly happening? I haven't seen it, but maybe I'm just dim.... if somebody has, then out with it.

on preview, what everyone else said.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:59 AM on July 1, 2005

On a game I run the current ip address or last ip address used was made available. I had to take it away because some pinheads would use them as targets for denial of service attacks or as hack targets. As hot as tempers flare here at times it wouldn't be too long at all until something similar happened. I also seem to recall at least one case where somebody contacted another metafilter users employer. I can't see that kind of visibility ending well.

You'll also have amateur sleuths with an axe to grind misinterpreting ip addresses. In many cases your actual ip address is obscured and a common which points back at a firewall is given out. So even though you could have 20 or 30 people from a large company like Microsoft logged in it'd be entirely possible that they'd all appear to be the same user.
posted by substrate at 7:00 AM on July 1, 2005

Is this situation not considered a puppet?

Hacking my stumling way through the syntax jungle here, but: no, tentatively. If you actively post under more than one account contemporaneously, tjough, you're fuckin' with us, and must be destroyed.

Otherwise, all is love and mutual back-pimple popping.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:05 AM on July 1, 2005

I've posted on MeFi under a different name before. For personal reasons, I've retired that account and now live under this one. If it really matters what my previous handle was, just ask. (Is this situation not considered a puppet?)

Agreed. There is a sense in which all our accounts are "sock puppets" for our real-world workaday lives. We all know about how we post things here that we'd never say to someone's face. Ultimately, I'm not sure how much difference it makes whether a person uses one account or 20.

On preview: I love ya, stavros, but I'd never fuck with ya, and I'm certainly not getting anywhere near those back pimples.
posted by ChrisTN at 7:11 AM on July 1, 2005

The whole point is to create an avatar removed from one's real life self.

Just because some people marry up by associating their real non famous person with their marginally now famous internet person doesn't mean everyone would benefit in this manner.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:16 AM on July 1, 2005

*hands the wonderchicken a big tub of moisturizer*
posted by matteo at 7:17 AM on July 1, 2005

If you want a community, you need identities and reputations. You don't need to know everything about each person (i.e, their "real world" identity), but you need at least a name or a nick to form a mental picture of who you are talking to over the course of time. And you need a reputation system -- a way for the community to know who has said what in the past, and to make assessments about each individual on the basis of those statements and conduct.

If you don't care about any of that stuff, fine. But then why do any of us have user names? Why not just omit user names altogether? Just a bunch of comments on a screen -- from one person or 20, who knows!

Because that would suck. And while that's the extreme example, sock puppets tend to make the site more like that sucky example, and less like a community.
posted by Mid at 7:21 AM on July 1, 2005

This is a stupid idea. There are plenty of ways to have a different IP shown each time you post. So, if you wanted to go to the trouble of hiding your sock puppet account, you could. Meanwhile, most everyone else who doesn't have a sock puppet, and isn't in the mood to browse the site covertly, has their IP attached to posts they make on Metafilter.
posted by chunking express at 7:36 AM on July 1, 2005

So even though you could have 20 or 30 people from a large company like Microsoft logged in it'd be entirely possible that they'd all appear to be the same user.

I fall into this category. I know of at least three other people in my office (not Microsoft and nowhere near as big) that have Mefi accounts and we're all pumpin' it out through the same IP address.
posted by Necker at 7:38 AM on July 1, 2005

Matt has already said that there aren't many sock puppets and the few that do exist are innocuous. Why do you disbelieve him?
posted by LarryC at 7:50 AM on July 1, 2005

For god's sake, dios is not a sock puppet. If you're that concerned about him, you can correspond with him like I have -- his e-mail is right there on his user page. He's a perfectly nice guy, believe it or not, even if his commenting style can be annoying. Give him time, he may improve. But I find the over-the-top abuse ("troll!") and nasty speculation ("sock puppet!") absurd and beneath what should be MeFi's dignity. If you don't like somebody's politics or style, fine, but try not to jump in the mud pit.

And what grouse said about the IPs.
posted by languagehat at 7:50 AM on July 1, 2005

One person, one account. No revealing ISPs but Matt, please kill off known sockpuppet accounts. There is an established balance between anonymity and identification consistency on this site that the majority follow and expect.
posted by peacay at 7:56 AM on July 1, 2005

languagehat, this is not about dios. It's about an idea... and of course things can be obfuscated, anonymised etc. But at least it would be obvious -- and a slight tingle in the back of my mind thinks work posting should be obfuscated, that kinda diminishes what I posted, but that's what this is all about; trying to find a way through the sockshit.

Basically, I was reading around the site a bit and thought that a bit of sockpuppetry was happening, and it made things quite banal.

In our own little hinterlands, maybe one day there will be a thread full of comments, with one poster utilizing multiple sockies posting him/herself into oblivion. I was just hoping I'd get to see that in advance, and not just skip over it.
posted by gsb at 8:10 AM on July 1, 2005

One person, one account. No revealing ISPs but Matt, please kill off known sockpuppet accounts. There is an established balance between anonymity and identification consistency on this site that the majority follow and expect.
posted by peacay at 7:56 AM PST on July 1 [!]

Essentially you are suggesting a a caste system.

Let me quote Franklin's speech before the Convention:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

We must rage against the dying of the light.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:18 AM on July 1, 2005

languagehat, this is not about dios.

Oh yeah? You may not have wanted this thread to be about dios, but at this point in time this issue is about dios, in a lot of people's minds at any rate. Exhibit A, the full version of the crunchland comment you quoted in your post:

knowing people's sock puppets or making IP's public would so let the steam out of threads like this, and dios in particular.

(Emphasis added.) I'm sure there are sock puppets around, though I don't think they're as heinous as some chickens people seem to (I miss mathowie's baby), but it's uncalled for to accuse anyone you don't like of being one. I know that's not what you were doing, but I wasn't addressing my point to you but to those who need to hear it.
posted by languagehat at 8:18 AM on July 1, 2005

If you start publishing everyone's IP address then you're going to end up with a lot of owned machines.
posted by bshort at 8:23 AM on July 1, 2005

It's kind of unfair to add them after the fact, no?
posted by mathowie at 8:29 AM on July 1, 2005

Hah!
posted by LarryC at 8:33 AM on July 1, 2005

Well, ChrisTN is God Almighty. Next?
posted by Mid at 8:44 AM on July 1, 2005

Gosh, that was quick!

>It's kind of unfair to add them after the fact, no?

Yeah, I guess it is. Oh well.
posted by gsb at 8:44 AM on July 1, 2005

"The whole point is to create an avatar removed from one's real life self."

Fuck that. If that's what you're interested in, go play a MMORPG. This "playacting", its anonymity and its associated lack of accountability, is 80% of the reason why Internet discussion is such a cesspool. I think it's cowardly and childish. If you don't want people to know who you are then why should they take your words seriously? Or, indeed, assume that your arguments are no less a facade than is your online identity?

Anyway, what LarryC said. I don't see any compelling evidence that indicates sock-puppets are a big problem and Matt has said they're not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:47 AM on July 1, 2005

Where did Matt say that? It's been asserted twice now with no link. (Just curious, not saying you're making it up.)
posted by Mid at 8:51 AM on July 1, 2005

I did say that, at least once before if not twice or more.
posted by mathowie at 8:53 AM on July 1, 2005

Well, ChrisTN is God Almighty. Next?

And this is my point: what does this buy you? If I'm using my "sock puppet" merely to make silly little jokes on occasion, mostly in threads about religion, simply to help lighten the mood and try to keep conversation a tad more civil, what's the harm in that? Why bother lumping me in with others who are using extra accounts to troll or stir the shit? I think your overbroad arguments are flawed to the point of being useless.

But if stavros and peacay and whoever else want Matt to kill off my extra account...hell, my primary account...go ahead. What the fuck ever.
posted by ChrisTN at 8:54 AM on July 1, 2005

God Almighty's contact list is hilarious.
posted by sciurus at 9:01 AM on July 1, 2005

God Almighty was funny once, maybe, but didn't really hold up across multiple postings for me.
posted by $10 Worth of Sex at 9:04 AM on July 1, 2005

Having fun, Matt? Or, should I say 2n.2n.2n9.6n?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:05 AM on July 1, 2005

God Almighty was funny once, maybe, but didn't really hold up across multiple postings for me.

You're wrong, and you're probably a sockpuppet yourself. Twunt.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:06 AM on July 1, 2005

I don't want my IP broadcast. There's a reason I run a firewall and block pings from the outside 'net. Lame, lame, lame. Besides, an IP is not some totally unique and secure identifier. What next, my SS number? Fingerprints? Let's make MeFi biometrically validated and totally secure!

Security is almost always an illusion. If man can make the lock or system, man can break the lock or game the system. That's the way it is, has been, and always will be. (Though, quantum crypto may change that to some extent.)

My only problem with the small amount of trolling here is that it isn't nearly artful enough. And sock puppets keep things interesting. There's hardly a problem here - whether or not you compare it to the rest of the web.

Anyway, "Trolling" in various forms has been going on for decades, if not since the dawn of multi-user computing or telecommunications itself. Not only is it not going to go away, it hasn't been the death of the internet/BBS/usenet/telegraph, and it won't be the death of MeFi.
posted by loquacious at 9:08 AM on July 1, 2005

The Jesse Helms writes "Essentially you are suggesting a a caste system."

Um..wtf? How do you figure that? Try egalitarianism. I want everyone to be equal with no sockpuppets. It's no huge thing. I just tend to think that it's tacit encouragement for trolling or hiding or attentionwhoring. Kill them, don't kill them...whatever. I'm just stating my opinion which is marginally above ambivalence.
Oooh. Matt, that little ISP appearance moment was a bit surreal.
posted by peacay at 9:11 AM on July 1, 2005

WEEEEEEEEEE! I'M NAKED!!!!

*Runs around screaming and plugging cables into his head.*
posted by loquacious at 9:13 AM on July 1, 2005

Matt's previous remark, referenced above:

I personally see all the paypal details fly past in email and notice very few people buying second accounts. So far people seem to be using them primarily for joke accounts, with psuedo-anonymous ask mefi posts being a close second. After that, I think people that left/quit/were banned get second accounts.

But really, I think we're talking a couple dozen accounts, tops. It's not like everyone's doing it, so I'd say while identity is important in a community, I don't think this is widespread enough to be a real problem.
posted by mathowie at 12:23 AM PST on June 10 [!]
posted by LarryC at 9:17 AM on July 1, 2005

please kill off known sockpuppet accounts

Could we have a sock puppet cage match to the death? And then allow just one superstrong and powerful sock puppet - to be feared and respected from afar.

It's kind of unfair to add them after the fact, no?

I'm glad to hear you think that way, because I don't like the ISP outing idea either - and mainly just because I don't want my work ISP showing up here. I don't even know the other possible technical ramifications that an internet ne'er-do-well can do with that info, if any.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:17 AM on July 1, 2005

Gee, thanks peacay. Without informed opinions like yours that are marginally above ambivalence, this community would never be able to fight off the hordes of marauding sockpuppets. Keep fighting the good fight.
posted by ChrisTN at 9:20 AM on July 1, 2005

ChrisTN, you're just mad that your silly puppet has been outed. You were asking for it when you posted that stupid first comment in this thread, huge white space and all.

For the record, though, I've always said that I don't care about stupid jokey SPs, including yours. It's the trolls and the stirrers that bother me. If they don't exist, fine -- prove it. Matt's comments above (thanks for the links) say to me: (1) he does not really follow this too closely; and (2) even not following closely, there are at least 24 socks that he has noticed.
posted by Mid at 9:33 AM on July 1, 2005

Also, if Matt was really calling everyone's bluff, he'd do this IP thing in the thread that Crunchland originally complained about.
posted by Mid at 9:37 AM on July 1, 2005

Mid, you're still missing my point. If I was really concerned about my "silly puppet" being "outed" (???), then I never would have posted from both accounts in a thread concerning the possibility of making IP addresses public. I simply don't care that you (or anybody) knows that I've posted from both usernames.

My last question to you remains unanswered: what does this information buy you? What can you do/know now that you couldn't before? How can you hold me more accountable in community now that you know that one person is behind both accounts, or that you know my ISP? What is the point behind all this?
posted by ChrisTN at 9:40 AM on July 1, 2005

If you do this, Matt, why not show only the last couple octets of the posting IP address, or a hash of the IP address, or something? This would solve the issue at hand (for those who it is an issue) without exposing all the people who are posting at work.
posted by kindall at 9:43 AM on July 1, 2005

Dude -- I don't care about jokey sock puppets. I've said that a few times already. You had a jokey sock puppet. I don't care.

What I do care about is people (if there are any) who use puppets to attack, troll, and otherwise say things that they don't want associated with their "real" account. What this information "buys me," as you say, is that I would then know to associate the bad conduct of the SP with that of the "real" username.

Does this matter in the scheme of life? Of course not. But does it matter for stopping the undermining of the reputational systems that make a community -- if you care about that, yes.
posted by Mid at 9:47 AM on July 1, 2005

Also: if people are so blase about online identity, then why create a SP in the first place? The very act of creating an SP (except for dumb jokes) proves the point that there are reputational systems at play in the community. The SP is an explicit effort to avoid and undermine those systems.
posted by Mid at 9:50 AM on July 1, 2005

ChrisTN writes "How can you hold me more accountable in community"
Look, obviously it's not about you or the way you jump in with your humour -- but it IS at least nice to know who is who -- shit, that would be fine enough without ISPs being divulged or killing the accounts. Not knowing if/who/when is occasionally an annoyance or downright suspicous. And what mid said.
posted by peacay at 9:54 AM on July 1, 2005

Hey, let's have some fun with the unique feature of this thread. If there is someone you suspect of sockpuppetry, email 'em and challenge them to post in this thread!
posted by LarryC at 9:54 AM on July 1, 2005

If there is someone you suspect of sockpuppetry, email 'em and challenge them to post in this thread!

I think this thread has actually become a no sock puppet zone since I'd think unaccountable anonymity is one of the main benefits of a sockpuppet. Of course, wouldn't you need them to post in this thread as a sock puppet AND as their regular account to compare and contrast?
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 10:13 AM on July 1, 2005

It is definitely unfair to post people's IPs without warning them in advance. In fact, I'm only posting now because my IP has already been exposed.

gsb: It is pretty easy to figure out who you are from your IP and the information you have provided on MetaFilter in the past. I'll refrain from posting that information here without your permission, even though you requested that other people be exposed without their permission.

It's trivially easy to identify me too, except I (unlike you) voluntarily let the membership know who I am.
posted by grouse at 10:25 AM on July 1, 2005

Moral panic.
posted by LarryC at 10:27 AM on July 1, 2005

I removed the IPs because it sufficiently freaked many folks out, which is why I kind of did it, to show how invasive this request could be.
posted by mathowie at 10:27 AM on July 1, 2005

Awww. But I wanted to explode!
posted by loquacious at 10:34 AM on July 1, 2005

My point was not an issue of exposing people's offline identities, to be honest I didn't think too far ahead; yes, I'm stoopid.

In answer to your question about revealing that stuff, I said:

-- and a slight tingle in the back of my mind thinks work posting should be obfuscated, that kinda diminishes what I posted, but that's what this is all about; trying to find a way through the sockshit.

OK, so it's a bad idea. I just thought it would prevent sockpuppetry: anyone who wanted to post within the same thread from two or more accounts, within a short period of time, would be dissuaded from doing so. I'll try better next time.
posted by gsb at 10:39 AM on July 1, 2005

It'd be very uneven in its effect, having much more impact on people who post via static IPs -- under some circumstances they can physically be tracked down. AOLers and the like are at the opposite extreme, since they not only have dynamic IPs like most home users, but they also browse through proxies which means every single request can come from a different IP.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:39 AM on July 1, 2005

For what little it's worth, when I said that, I wasn't suggesting it be implemented, but more of a wishful thinking sort of thing.

Whether dios is a sock puppet or not is pretty much irrelevant. The fact that there are "a couple dozen or so" is a couple dozen too many.

Sock puppets cast doubt on everyone. If you can't say what you want with your main id, then you probably shouldn't say it in the first place. And if it were up to me (which it's not), I'd out every sock puppet and the associated uids of any that displayed obvious trollery.

Someday... when I take over the world... you'll see!
posted by crunchland at 10:52 AM on July 1, 2005

Matt, why not show only the last couple octets of the posting IP address, or a hash of the IP address, or something?

A hash is a risk I could live with.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:58 AM on July 1, 2005

This is a horrible idea, an IP address isn't just a unique identifier, there's a whole lot of information in that, including the company that you work for and, well, the IP address of the poster, which you can use to ownz0r their box in some cases.

I'd rather not have people forwarding my comments on, for example, drug use to my employer, complete with the static IP address of my box because I pissed them off or something.

Fuck that shit.
posted by delmoi at 11:05 AM on July 1, 2005

I don't see a reason to display IP's but I am in total agreement with stavros waaaaaay up there near the top. I fucking hate sock puppet accounts as well.

If I find out who the sock puppets are, I'm gonna sign them up for a Man Coulter makeover (warning, link is not safe for anyone anywhere at anytime).
posted by fenriq at 11:09 AM on July 1, 2005

Matt, why not show only the last couple octets of the posting IP address, or a hash of the IP address, or something?

I could see a lot of tilting at windmills if the last octets are posted. It doesn't take a lot of people in a community (20,000+ is more than enough) for there to be overlaps of the last octets. Especially true since a lot of LANs assign IPs the same way. It's the same idea as the birthday paradox---if you get more than 23 people in the room the odds are better than 50-50 that two people will have the same b-day (of 365.25 possible days). I imagine that if you get 20,000 MeFites in a room there will be overlaps between 133,225 possible last pairs.

That said, it doesn't solve the AOL problem (different every time) or the firewall problem (everyone in the firm has the same IP).
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:09 AM on July 1, 2005

Sure, the last two octets wouldn't be perfect. It would be a lot less perfect than the last one alone, though. How about the second and the fourth? ;)

I like the hash idea better though -- just add the octets together, that'll be good enough. If a user's IP hash tends to vary by a few points, it's a decent enough indicator that they're the same person, or else an AOL user. (It would be easy enough to learn to recognize typical AOL hashes, or flag posts from known AOL proxies, or whatever.)

Just a thought...
posted by kindall at 11:24 AM on July 1, 2005

I just did a quick speed test and I can calculate SHA1 hashes of all possible IPv4 numbers in a little over seven hours on my desktop. Don't add hashes without salt.
posted by grouse at 11:27 AM on July 1, 2005

I'm with Stav on the sockpuppetry. I understand that it's only a few accounts, but that is a misleading number. Those who get sockpuppets--especially those who have been banned--are doing it because they want to be active in the community. They are often some of the most active members. So while the actual number of accounts are few, there are still many posts from these accounts. Personally, I find that a bit disruptive.

I don't think displaying IP addresses is the answer. It's really up to Matt, and whether he wants to make a policy decision.
posted by frykitty at 11:39 AM on July 1, 2005

Sounds like a great idea. People and their fucking sock puppets...
posted by I EAT TAPES at 11:43 AM on July 1, 2005

Yeah, what that Tapes Guy said
posted by George W. Bush at 11:44 AM on July 1, 2005

I visit a vegan forum every day where the IPs of all of the posters are visible, for the same reason, and it's never been a problem.

i've seen this work fine elsewhere too. But with all due respect, I think it would be disastrous here. This community is unusually net-savvy. Ten minutes after this feature pops up, someone will be distributing a greasemonkey script to show you where each commenter is geographically and from what business/org they are posting from.

Mix in some long-standing vendettas (as seen regularly in a Metatalk thread near you) and political train-wrecks and well, you get the point. I only wish we were as well-behaved as a vegan forum.
posted by vacapinta at 11:50 AM on July 1, 2005

must be all the meat we eat.
posted by crunchland at 11:52 AM on July 1, 2005

I don't think there has been much abuse, and Matt has other ways to deal with that. The loss of privacy which would affect all users just to limit a few bozos seems unwarranted.
posted by caddis at 11:55 AM on July 1, 2005

*Makes a mental note to be very careful around grouse*
posted by Francophone at 12:01 PM on July 1, 2005

I am the MetaFilter user: rcade. I have this to say regarding this matter. Thank you.
All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be construed. /vonnegut
posted by $15 worth of sox at 12:29 PM on July 1, 2005

God, you people are cowardly. Take responsibility for what you say in public, or don't say it in the first place. You're spoiled little brats--posting from your workplaces but whining about your right to privacy, saying how horribly unfair it would be for someone to be able to use your own words against you. Christ.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:43 PM on July 1, 2005

I can calculate SHA1 hashes of all possible IPv4 numbers in a little over seven hours

Good advice in general, but I think SHA would be way too compute-intensive for this application anyway; just add the numbers together, it works well enough and can't easily be reversed unless your IP address is 0.0.0.0. (Well, okay, you could pre-calculate all the SHAs and do a lookup, that'd be fast enough, but why bother?)
posted by kindall at 12:45 PM on July 1, 2005

Frykitty: So while the actual number of accounts are few, there are still many posts from these accounts.

And what is the evidence for that statement? A lot of you, including some users who I respect a great deal, seem all excited about the horrible sock puppetry epidemic. What am I missing? Because I don't see any evidence of it happening at all, other than the harmless joke accounts. This seems like hysterical over reaction to a nonexistent problem. Or is there some body of evidence of widespread use of sock puppets, which everyone knows about except me?
posted by LarryC at 12:53 PM on July 1, 2005

God, you people are cowardly.

While I see your point, I'm not sure why your delivery has to be so over the top. Call it whining if you will, but I cannot participate here if my workplace is that exposed... not without some serious self-censoring. I expect many people are like me. If you feel the site would be a better place without us, -ok- maybe you're right to call us cowards. But I hope that's not what you feel.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:56 PM on July 1, 2005

EB, it must be as hot where you are as it is here. Have a glass of iced tea!
posted by languagehat at 1:07 PM on July 1, 2005

um, people: enough with this silliness about "security concerns". If knowing your IP address is enough to break into your machine, then your security setup is so fragile that it doesn't even deserve the name.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:11 PM on July 1, 2005

Take responsibility for what you say in public, or don't say it in the first place.

Thats really an ignorant statement and presumes that there is only one definition of "public." People like to have fun here and may not want to mix different aspects of their public lives in the same way that an elementary school teacher may not want her students to see her posting to an S&M "dating" site.

Again, they are both public aspects of the same person but the Internet, lacking the subtlety in human relations, sometimes forces us to mix all these things up together in ways in which they were never meant to be combined.
posted by vacapinta at 1:11 PM on July 1, 2005

Just relax, Francophone.
posted by grouse at 1:16 PM on July 1, 2005

Even if I was a sock puppet, I'd still hate you all.

Hell, I wanna blow the $5 on an alternate username just to tell you that -- but I'm saving up for hookers and blow.

By the way.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:21 PM on July 1, 2005

How do you guys even know what's a sockpuppet and what's just a regular account with a potential wiseass behind it? I'm honestly flummoxed - is it only account names that are blatantly obvious like "mathowie's baby"? I must be missing something.
posted by tristeza at 2:10 PM on July 1, 2005

I can't believe my opinion preceded me here. Thanks, sox!

Ethereal: Owning your words is great, but drawing the attention of an Internet nutjob who decides to make as much trouble as possible in your real life is a pretty high cost of ownership.

If IP addresses are shared publicly, everyone who posts here from a static address runs the risk of getting harrassed. And many of the users here won't even understand they've taken that risk until it's too late.

For this reason, I've never been comfortable sharing them publicly in message boards I code. The most I'll do is present a page showing the comments that came from the same IP address, without revealing the address.

A solution like that would deter some sock puppetry. On the Drudge Retort, it has taken a lot of the fun out of trolling.
posted by rcade at 2:25 PM on July 1, 2005

I don't understand what the problem here is. People are acting like there are a bunch of disruptive "sock-puppet" accounts who are ruining everyone else's mefi experience, but I've seen no evidence of such activities at all. Some people do have multiple accounts, sometimes to make jokes, but I think this is rarely a real problem. It's like you're all whipped up by a Red Scare or something.

Find a real issue, mmmkay.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:34 PM on July 1, 2005

Helpful Thread Summary:

FPP: I fear sockpuppets. Lets remove posting privacy from users who aren't sufficiently savvy to hide them, I'll feel better!

Users: That's stupid.

Matt: Here's everyone IP addresses for a second, see how dumb that was?

Users: Extremely stupid.
posted by mosch at 3:02 PM on July 1, 2005

There is a long tradition of anonymous public discussion in this country. Just go read the Federalist Papers for but one example. Get off the high horse EB.
posted by caddis at 3:03 PM on July 1, 2005

mosch: I do not fear sockpuppets. If they were removed I would not feel better. And yeah, for the umpteenth time, I guess it's a stupid thing for this place.

Fuck me backwards!! It was just an idea and a question.
posted by gsb at 3:39 PM on July 1, 2005

You're spoiled little brats--posting from your workplaces but whining about your right to privacy, saying how horribly unfair it would be for someone to be able to use your own words against you. Christ.

That would be reasonable if it were the case that people would only get in trouble for writing words that were truly troublesome, or actionable, or otherwise bad or harmful. But there are lots of employers that would discipline or fire an employee for making innocuous (but perhaps unpopular) statements, for no better reason than that they want to and aren't forbidden from doing so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:03 PM on July 1, 2005

Kindly remember that at many places of employment, internet use policies are as malable as butter on a hot summer day. Disagreement with a stance, well spoken or not, can quickly morph into actionable "innapropriate use". ROU_X is spot on.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:15 PM on July 1, 2005

Also note that employers can fire your ass or otherwise discipline you for what you write on metafilter from home, even if it's something innocuous that they just don't like.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:06 PM on July 1, 2005

also note: the situation which xenophobe describes has indeed happened.
posted by puke & cry at 6:06 PM on July 1, 2005

well, not exactle the situation. but you know.
posted by puke & cry at 6:06 PM on July 1, 2005

I say don't out the current SP users, let bygones be bygones, I'm not a supporter of SP accounts especially if people use them to "hide" to ambush/troll.
posted by Chimp at 7:27 PM on July 1, 2005

um, people: enough with this silliness about "security concerns". If knowing your IP address is enough to break into your machine, then your security setup is so fragile that it doesn't even deserve the name.

Or to put it differently: security through obscurity should never be relied upon.

There are two problems with revealing IPs, one of which exists in the idealized world where it's at all useful and the other which is the reality of the situation.

The ideal problem with revealing IPs is this: when the posts and comments in question were made, there was an implied social contract in existence because at that time IPs were never published. Retroactively rewriting that contract is, while fully within Matt's rights, an incredibly shitty thing to do. That fact and Matt being a decent guy prevents the IPs of existing comments from being publicized pretty much for all time.

However, as far as future comments go, there's nothing morally wrong - at least from where I'm standing - with Matt saying at some arbitrary point (say, when the site redesign goes up), "From here on out all future posts will have the IP address of the poster visible."


The real-world problem is that posting someone's IP address is meaningless. A solid three quarters or more of MeFi posters could trivially be tracked down to their IP address with a bit of effort - whether by inserting single pixel images somewhere you know they'll visit, or by some legwork with google. If someone with some time on their hands wants to track you down on the 'net, they'll eventually pull it off. If someone with some time on their hands wants to compromise your home network, they'll eventually pull it off. I've been on both sides of that fact.

Additionally, given the ease of finding and using open proxies, revealing IP addresses would end up being an impolite removal of privacy for those who aren't doing anything wrong and a 2-second hindrance for those who are. In fact, just this morning someone from MeFi was asking me how to use proxies to circumvent the kiddie-proofing firewall they were trapped behind.

For Mozilla:
Tools -> Options -> General -> Connection Settings

For Internet Explorer:
Tools -> Internet Options -> Connections

Google "proxy list", the first result's list is fairly hit or miss, but it's kind enough to denote which of those support SSL and which intentionally fail to pass on referrer information.
posted by Ryvar at 7:56 PM on July 1, 2005

i spent the fifty dollars on those ten accounts and by god i am going to get some good out of them.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:54 PM on July 1, 2005

in all seriousness,
fuck sockpuppets and fuck each and every one of you who has one. fuck you in the ass with an oversized graveled dildo. why the fuck do you hurt metafilter, you fucks? fuck you.
posted by mr.marx at 10:41 AM on July 2, 2005

lube up marx
posted by caddis at 7:53 PM on July 2, 2005

Sock puppets are stupid and cowardly. Except when they are funny, which is almost never.

It is so trivially easy to post from a different IP address that showing them would be pointless.
posted by dg at 4:24 PM on July 3, 2005

All is known to mathowie and to him we must entrust the protection of our identities.
posted by James I at 7:39 PM on July 3, 2005

Another reason why judging sock puppet accounts based on IPs is dorky is what about all the spouses, live in lovers, roommates, and fambilee members that use the same computer, HELLOOO?? Besides, what would all the mefi Sherlock Holmes wannabes do with their time if suddenly there were no secret identity shenanigans to uncover?
posted by zarah at 12:10 PM on July 4, 2005