Kevin Rose first mentioned Digg as being a site that belonged to one of his friend's instead of saying "Check out my new site Digg!" Both Reddit & Digg would have been worse off if the founders didn't do what they did.
These are social sites and subject to the same kind of first impression biases that we all face in person.
Imagine showing up at a party with 2 guys sitting on a couch talking to each other compared to a party with people out front talking, people inside dancing and a small group in the back yard sharing a laugh. Social proof matters & I'd hardly consider this cheating or slimy.
But it is. People will look at a site like HN, say, "Ah, there are lots of really smart people on here: this guy has done this, that guy has done that, etc.", only to find out it's really just pg arguing with himself. It's deceptive because people believe they are getting 500 independent evaluations when really they're getting 5 original responses times 100 falsifications of what those five people think someone else might say. It's not a fair way to represent the site to its readership or participants.
If you say, "Ah, my party will probably only be three of us, I better pay 100 people to stand around so that I don't look bad", do people normally think this is an honest practice? You're still perpetrating a deception that could have real consequences.
For me, the distinction is that the site was just starting out. Personally, I feel they're entitled to some leeway to get the conversation/momentum going. If this was happening 2 years down the road then I'd agree it's a problem.
If it were a dating site and the founders filled it with a bunch of fake profiles with pictures of models, then I would have an issue with it because I'd feel the user is being taken advantage of. If there's a fake profile submitting links to news stories, there isn't much of a victim.
I tend to think it's true. With the exception of when business means something bigger, ie when it actually has been defined by moral principles, like wikipedia, which more of a charity than business anyway.
It's not a prerequisite. There are people that can businesses ruthlessly and without moral regard for the choices they make. I think more often the morality of most businesses is misrepresented as absent for the convenience of those who want to evoke sympathy within the proletariat.
"Heavy weighs the head that wears the crown"; when you lead a large entity, there are always going to be people that are unhappy with your choices. I think by and large the great majority of businesspersons attempt to conduct business morally in general.
These are social sites and subject to the same kind of first impression biases that we all face in person.
Imagine showing up at a party with 2 guys sitting on a couch talking to each other compared to a party with people out front talking, people inside dancing and a small group in the back yard sharing a laugh. Social proof matters & I'd hardly consider this cheating or slimy.