online reputation repair

8/12/2019 Online Reputation Repair

1/8

Online Reputation Repair

The analyses using rationale It is ethically and morally wrong for Online Reputation

Management to repair the reputation of individuals or businesses online. The reasons are:

online reputation repair or change gives misleading information to the general public about an

individual or a business which will positively favour or affect decision making concerning that

individual or business. This hides the negative aspects of that individual and denies us the right

to know the individuals we are doing business or relating with. There are also objections to this

line of reasoning. Individuals and businesses are free to be who they want to be. The fact that

an individual had a bad past does not mean that they cannot have a good future. Sometimes a

business reputation can be damaged intentionally by a foe; this business has no option than to

wipe away the past (Quora, 2012). Online reputation repair is wrong because of the potentialmisleading positive information it gives. Providing such positive information about an individual

violates the universal human rights law because the general public is denied the true

information about that individual and this could potentially cause harm, pain and distrust. The

possibility of fraudulent criminal practise cannot be over-stated here. Our rights to know whom

we are dealing with have been taken away and as such we may be living with total strangers in

our bedrooms. However, we can also argue that an individual or business may not have

criminal intent when repairing their reputation; their reputation may have been damaged by a

grudging 1|P age

employee, a jealous boyfriend or for some other reasons beyond their control. Privacy allows us

to keep our dirty past private. An individual has a right to be who they want to be. Individuals

do not need permission from the public before they can decide on what they choose to be. Yes,

we can be who we want to be but that does not mean that we should deny others their rights

to the moral truth about us especially when it has to do with information that influences howthey deal with us (rights to liberty). Repairing an individuals online reputation will cause the

general public to relate to this individual differently. This may result to other people trusting this

individual and releasing vital information that they would not normally give out. The trusting

party has not only lost their right to control information about them but also lost their right to

anonymity; which will directly affect their rights to solitude. Privacy is the claim of individuals,

groups or institutions to determine when, how and to what extent information about them is


2/8

communicated to others (Westin, 1967). Altering a clients reputation online is hence a clear

violation of privacy. In similar terms, this alteration or repair is pure dishonesty. People could

change their online identity to deceive others and then commit a crime. For example a known

child sex offender could repair his reputation and pass online as a loving father to an

unsuspecting single mother. This crime can harm a person or family. To subject an individual or

people to harm is not right.

Some may argue that the lack of motive or intention makes an action harmless. That is, the

person repairing the reputation does not have criminal intentions but needs that repair to get

on with life. We may have that right to repair our pasts so that they do not affect our future but

providing information about oneself that is not true or providing information to cover up a

negative past (even if the past was caused by a mistake) is misleading, criminal and totallydishonest! The general public may not care much about the information they find about an

individual since they do not know the initial negative information after all. It is still wrong to

provide intentional positive information in order to cover a negative past. Another line of

argument will be that since the negative reputation about a person or business may still be

online, users can find this information. This is not very true as this information becomes hidden

in back pages and people are generally contented in looking at the first few pages of a search

engine. Again, there is no basis to hide or alter this negative reputation. Businesses may use

positive information to hype a product for marketing reasons but still, wrong information is

peddled and the consumer is defrauded (NYT, 2010). Analyses using the utilitarian theory From

a classical utilitarian view, it is not right to alter, repair or modify our reputation online as it is

clear that this intentional misinformation may cause people to change the way they see us,

cause harm to people, infringe on peoples privacy and their fundamental human rights. If it is

not wrong for reputation to be repaired, then it will be easy for anyone to 3|P age


3/8

assume the reputation or identity of another person and then use it in any fashion they desire.

This is a very dangerous trend that is harming people every day. We have seen cases where

people have been defrauded because they believed on the reputation of an individual, business

or product which turned out to be false.

The analyses using deontology theory From a deontology aspect, this repair or alteration serves

as a means to an end. The person or business repairing their reputation uses the people (their

changed or new feelings or relationship to fake positive information) as the means. The end

implies whatever the perpetrator hopes to achieve by making people see them differently from

who they really are. In other words, peoples emotions and feelings are used to achieve some

selfish gains. People ought to be treated with respect and dignity and not just used as a meansto arrive at some gain. Conclusion It is wrong and unacceptable for Online Reputation

Management to repair the profiles or reputation of people online. This issue presents a lot of

problems that can hurt us, invade our privacy, steal our identities and make us who we are not.

Government should take steps to shut off companies that sell such services to clients, put firm

control on how peoples identities can be accessed and setup trade bodies to monitor

businesses who will want to


4/8

repair the reputation of a product in order to sell better (The Chronicle, 2011). Individual should

be more careful about relying only on information from online sources for a person, business or

product. People should develop duty of care and not work for companies or individuals who are

in this line of business.

References NYT. (2010). A Bully Finds a Pulpit on the Web. Retrieved from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html Quora. (2011).Is online

reputation management ethical? Retrieved from: http://www.quora.com/Is-online-reputation-

management-ethical SFGate. (2011). Online Reputation Repair: Mugshot No More. Retrieved

from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/09/16/prweb8799537.DTL The

Chronicle. (2011). Online reputation management creates opportunities for deceit. Retrieved

from: http://dukechronicle.com/article/online-reputation-management-createsopportunities-deceit Westin, A.F. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum

Appendix A.

It is not right to have reputation repaired by Online Reputation Management

Can cause us harm and pain

supports

Could make people trust others that they would not normally trust

supports


5/8

Loss of privacy

Presenting misleading infomation to the general public is unethical

support

Reputation repair was done without criminal intent

Anyone is free to be who ever they want to be

The past was damaged by mistake

oppose

User gave consent to have their reputation repaired

A past mistake should not affect a very bright future

oppose


6/8

Privacy allows us to keep the dirth past private

opposes

Denies us the right to know about who we are dealing with

supports

Hides the negative aspect of an individual

supports

Intrusion of privacy is wrong

supports

Information distortion is dishonest

rebuts


7/8

Withholding past information that influences how people treat us is unfair and wrong

rebuts

Altering the reputation of people/business/products is wrong

supports

Information distortion is dishonest

supports

Criminals could use this to commit crime

supports

The past was damaged by mistake

opposes


8/8

Our pasts should not influence our future

opposes

People can create different identities online.

supports

people can take on the identities of others

supports

Rationale diagram on Online Reputation Management

online reputation repair

Documents