Planting fake bios and poisoned search results is weak privacy hygiene; pseudonyms, compartmentalization, and opt-outs beat scattered lies for most people.
Key Takeaways
Broad fake personal facts (invented employers, cities, birthdays) fail because brokers ingest public records, property deeds, and voter files that fake forum bios cannot overwrite.
Pseudonyms and compartments (separate email, payment, browser profile, no cross-posting) are endorsed; random disinformation under your legal name is not.
Targeted decoys like Canarytokens make sense as tripwires for detection, not as a lifestyle cover story you half-maintain for years.
Scattered lies create recovery debt: inconsistent addresses break “verify your previous address” flows and security questions unless managed in a password manager.
The FTC warns opt-out removals are not permanent; data reappears when public records update or surfaces through relatives.
Hacker News Comment Review
Commenters largely agreed the early-2000s norm of never using real info online was sound, but debated whether blank fields, “anon” labels, or active disinformation is the better follow-on move.
The common-name-as-superpower angle got traction: having a name like John Smith dilutes dossier accuracy without any active deception effort.
A skeptical thread noted the irony of an AI-adjacent blog arguing against deceiving data systems, framing it as self-interest in clean training data.
Notable Comments
@alcazar: cites Derek Sivers advocating a crafted back-story to answer common questions rather than silence, a direct counterpoint to the article’s default-no stance.
@a3abv: “Prolific AI blog giving advice about not trying to deceive AI” – sharp conflict-of-interest flag worth weighing.
