Social proof is a studied, verified effect, where people's opinions are shaped by the opinions of others at a subconscious level.
Do you hate laugh tracks? Me too. But research shows that people think shows are funnier with the laugh track than without, even if they say they hated the laugh track.
Are you annoyed by every brand saying they're "The Leading X" or "The Number 1 Y"? Me too. But marketing which includes these claims leads to higher sales than marketing without.
When I was a sales puke, I applied this principle to selling add-on insurance for car rentals. I identified a point in my pitch where I could add the words, "almost everybody takes the package". That's all, that's it. In the week when I first applied it, it added almost 10% to my rate of sale and the improvement persisted when I retained those words.
And I was dealing with all walks of life. Holiday makers of all kinds. From backpackers, to CEOs of german industrial giants, to law-school professors from leading US universities, they were all affected by the truthful claim that almost everybody bought the package from me.
Social proof works.
Wow, everybody falls for the pitch? Gee, I guess I'm convinced that social proof works.
Why is "more funny" the goal? What's wrong with just "funny"?
The social proof may be true, but so what. I would enjoy my life more if all I ate was candy and ice cream every day. For a few months, anyway...
This state of affairs makes the tools in this article extremely disturbing in the context of government contractors.
What do I give a crap about some sockpuppet content ghostwritten by a Fed -- since when am I reading the comments on Daily Kos, or some random dude's Twitter? Who cares what articles people vote on? I spend most of my online time reading an incrementally updated newsmagazine of my personal favorite writers on the planet via RSS.
Are you concerned about undue influence on public opinion? The only people being swayed or convinced by some sockpuppet campaign are those whose opinion is already made of shit. Do you really think that J. Random Congressman or Alfred E. Media Representative would be likely to have a sane, rational opinion on the issues of the day anyway? A couple dozen or hundred automated propaganda-bots are not likely to make his decisions even worse.
There's no reason to care about how the winners are picked. The cool thing about the Internet is that there's room for everyone, and that doesn't seem to be changing at all. That is the right system, and we're already there.