In the physical world we meet people every day who share their personal motivations (or not) on multiple levels. Some of them could be artists or even work for companies with a vested interest in our particular demographic segment. In the traditional publishing realm, authors release great works under pseudonyms and even have teams of associate writers compose large chunks or whole books. In many cases there is no disclosure.

Nobody calls Stephen King fake because he once penned works as Richard Bachman and John Swithen. Those alter egos are common knowledge, now but years ago it was a reuse. In human culture, anonymity and private motivations only rankle selectively.

Social media participation is a hot button for many and random hypocrisy is sometimes palpable. Lonely Girl became a YouTube rock star before and after she was discovered to be an avatar. After the truth was revealed, the case study was embraced by news organizations and popular culture and she became a media darling.

It's true, some of our clients' brand ambassadors hit the ground running with pseudonyms, predetermined personal "history," identifiable affinities, behavior patterns, strengths, personality defects, intricate psychological detail, and predictable emotions. Still, our bionic avatars invest unselfishly in the communities they participate in, make and maintain mutually beneficial friendships, and, frankly, bring much more to the table than most users they encounter. This leads us to ask:

"If the (covertly) bionic fireman saves the cat from the tree, who cares that the fireman avatar is bionic-that is, part human and part 'enhanced?' The cat ain't dead."

In the physical world, brand ambassadors represent special interests with debatably different levels of transparency, i.e., whether they reveal their biased stripes. On one extreme, the President of the United States has a press secretary who represents the administration's positions. He or she brings their own face, personality, and personal recommendation of the President's content to the glare of international media and constituents. The White House does not "own" the press secretary avatar, which can be a liability when said press secretary leaves office. For instance, he could decide to write a "tell-all" book revealing alleged presidential flaws. We call this the " lovely celebrity press secretary" approach.

An example of the opposite is when a "concerned" organization sends an "interested-friend" who does not share their entire life history with new friends at a community meeting. This interested-friend avatar may lurk and observe, participate in the discussion, and/or otherwise attempt to influence proceedings. Yes, she sure does have a personal agenda, as does everyone in the room.

As a citizen of the community, this person/avatar has every right to participate as an interested individual without having her face and personal recommendation associated with the faction she listens for -- interested party or not. There are those who would decry some participation as unethical. By whose ethical structure could one base such a judgment? Judeo Christian values? Federal Laws? The local Ad Club? Opinionated SEOs casually pontificating in dangerous generalities about social media avatar theory...well of course YES!

An interested-friend avatar can bring relevant content to the mob, make true friends, participate holistically, add unquestionable value, and in time even reveal his specific motivations. Does his intentional pacing of personal information cheapen preceding friendships given by wholehearted contribution to the dialog? I think not.

In online communities, our clients' interested-friends field personal messages on StumbleUpon late at night from the despondent who seek advice, share joys when a new baby is born, garner freelance writing gig offers, have sexy interactions, and bookmark others' fascinating content with tireless verve and sensitivity.

They unselfishly give, ask for precious little in return, only manipulate to serve, earn authority figure status, behave strictly according to TOS and the very model of altruistic social media participation. Everyone has a "right" to participate. There are those who would lambaste some participation as unethical. By whose moral standards could one base such a judgment?

Passionate social media aficionados preach that all social media participation should be fully transparent with complete personal disclosure. In many cases I agree and recommend that clients create press secretary avatars. However, social media mirrors physical life and, in the real world, people bring all combinations of transparency, intent, and participatory models to the table.

The same holds true online, and to expect anything different is somewhere between negligent and Pollyanna. Do I have to be the true version of "Marty Weintraub" every time I personally help a client work something out in social media? Can't I call myself "Floppy 3468" if I like?

Since the Internet's nascent beginnings, individuals and entities have taken liberties in how they portray their person or product. Ranging from healthy embellishment and subtle misrepresentations to outright fraud, the phenomena of online spin artists (or downright liars) has become a daunting maze. The web's inherent veil of anonymity is low-hanging fruit to tempt because the medium can easily be gamed, exploited, and abused. Reciprocally it's possible to do tremendous good by authentic and thoughtful participation, truly designed to serve the community unselfishly. Whether one discloses their actual motivation is every person and avatar's prerogative, the law in America and a basic "human" right.

Where does one draw the line in building "real," fictional, and hybrid social profiles? How much should be man...how much machine? What does "authentic" really mean? What are the ground rules? What are the golden rules? At what point does any given methodology in creating corporate brand ambassadors cross over to unacceptable, immoral, or unethical? Certainly the tiers of transparency and various approaches to building social media brand ambassador avatars should be carefully evaluated according to the tactics undertaken, potential benefits, and risks.

I heard I raised quite a few eyebrows at SES Toronto when I interrupted the moderator and jumped to the defense of social media evangelist Stephan Spencer's MySpace profile building tactics. The crowd, panelists, and moderator were jumping all over him for recommending mass-friending thousands of high authority users (actors, musicians, "dancers" etc.) to quickly build internal link authority, and then gradually replacing these placeholder friends with "real" buddies over time from a position of algorithmic strength. Stephan's among the most brilliant natural search freaks in the world.

As intense social media purists Twittered in their positions , I offered the following: "The problem is not fake social media avatars. The problem is fake social media avatars who are not authentic."

Corporate brand ambassador social media avatars will become of the most important PR mechanisms in the world. Good avatars will do great deeds to serve companies, communities, and their own self interests. Malevolent participation will ruin communities. Open your eyes. Early adopters have already arrived with incredible organization and detail to place thoughtful "boots on the ground" in various social channels. "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile."

As social media opportunities and disasters affect companies more and more, marketing departments will be sending avatars into communities with varying tiers of transparency ranging from full disclosure press secretaries to covert interested-friends. Such steps should be taken with the greatest respect for the communities in which participation is undertaken, with risk assessment and intentional care.