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 potential
misleading 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 how
they 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
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 totally
dishonest! 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





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 means
to 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







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



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



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



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



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