text: Astroturfing third-party websites by creating anonymous accounts that create positive reviews or lash out against negative ones.
  Proactively offering free products to prominent reviewers.
  Removing online mug shots.
  Proactively responding to public criticism stemming from recent changes.
  Removing or suppressing images that are embarrassing or violate copyright.
  Contacting Wikipedia editors to remove allegedly incorrect information from the Wikipedia pages of businesses they represent.
  Forbidding any comments
  Ethics
  The practice of reputation management raises many ethical questions. It is widely disagreed upon where the line for disclosure, astroturfing, and censorship should be drawn. Firms have been known to hire staff to pose as bloggers on third-party sites without disclosing they were paid, and some have been criticized for asking websites to remove negative posts. The exposure of unethical reputation management may itself be risky to the reputation of a firm that attempts it if known.
  In 2007 Google declared there to be nothing inherently wrong with reputation management, and even introduced a toolset in 2011 for users to monitor their online identity and request the removal of unwanted content. Many firms are selective about clients they accept. For example, they may avoid individuals who committed violent crimes who are looking to push information about their crimes lower on search results.