Should Ethics Play a Role in SEO/AI?

Are professionals responsible for what displays in search/answer engines?

Jan 13, 2026

This week’s sponsors are Profound and North Star Inbound. Their support keeps #SEOForLunch free for everyone each week.

A few weeks back, I came across a post on LinkedIn by Matt Tutt that made me sit up, re-read, and actually think. He shared how Jeffrey Epstein was paying for SEO services to “optimize” search results for his name.

Most people would bucket that under “reputation management,” where the goal is to push negative content down and make it harder to find.

I sat with that for a minute, and my ADHD brain sprinted straight to the real question: Should ethics play a role in SEO and AI?

Because, as Uncle Ben told Peter Parker, with great power comes great responsibility…

A special THANK YOU to this week’s sponsor: Profound

Automate Content Operations With Profound Workflows

Workflows let teams codify their best practices into automated checks, analyses, insights, and actions. With a few clicks, marketers can build repeatable processes that:

Automatically refresh content to better perform in AI search
Generate research-backed content briefs and outlines
Produce ongoing reports on content health, performance, or gaps

Get A Demo Of Profound Workflows

Define the real question

SEO ethics gets messy because we’re really arguing about two different things.

Capability debate: Can SEO and AI influence perception? Obviously. Rankings, headlines, Knowledge Panels, AI answers, and everything that shows up on page one shape what people believe is “true.”

Ethics debate: Should we help anyone influence perception? That’s where it stops being a technical conversation and becomes a values one.

Here’s the simple truth: SEO isn’t morally neutral in practice. It changes what people see first, what they trust, and what they decide to do next.

Why ethics matters even more now with AI

This matters more now because AI changes the output and the stakes. Search results are one thing. You still get a list of links, a mix of sources, and the user can decide what to click. LLM answers are another. They don’t just surface information. They compress it into a single narrative, delivered with confidence and little to no uncertainty.

If traditional SEO was moving blue links around, AI visibility is shaping the story people walk away with.

That’s why ethics gets messier. You’re no longer optimizing what ranks. You’re influencing what gets believed, even when the user never sees the sources behind it.

A practical ethics framework

Earlier in my career, I treated “ethics in SEO” the same way many treat celebrity political takes: optional, noisy, and mostly irrelevant to the job.

My goal was simple. Rank. Bank. Move on.

A wife, three kids, and about ten years later, I’ve changed my tune.

Here’s the simplest way I’ve found to think about ethics in SEO and AI without turning this into a philosophy class. Before you take the work, run it through a four-question filter.

Intent: Are we helping someone be understood, or helping them be forgotten? There’s a massive difference between adding context and erasing consequences.
Harm: Who would be harmed if this worked? Not just the client’s “reputation.” Think victims, customers, voters, patients, and the public. If your work makes it harder for people to make informed decisions, that’s a problem. (And yeah, the Epstein example lands here like a brick.)
Truth: Are we elevating accurate, verifiable context, or burying accurate reporting? “It’s negative” doesn’t mean it’s false. And “it’s old” doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
Accountability: Would I be comfortable explaining this project publicly? Not in vague case-study speak. Like, could I explain what I did and why, out loud, with my name attached?

Here’s my line in the sand: if the work primarily exists to reduce accountability for real harm, I’m out. Not “let’s reframe it.” Not “let’s make it more positive.” Out.

Because at that point, it’s no longer marketing.

And even if someone else takes the engagement, reality tends to win. SEO isn’t a magic eraser anymore. If you refuse to address the root issue (the behavior, the product, the service), the business will go under anyway… no matter how perfect page one looks.

Three common scenarios

I find that 99% of engagements fall into these three buckets. The line in the sand you draw might be different than mine, and that’s fine. But let’s talk about each.

Scenario A: Legit reputation repair

A company has outdated or flat-out inaccurate coverage ranking for their name. Maybe the issue was resolved, ownership changed, or the original claim was corrected. The ethical path here isn’t “make it disappear.” It’s to publish transparent updates, improve documentation, and earn coverage that reflects what’s true today. You’re helping people find accurate context, not hiding history.

Scenario B: Gray area

A company has valid criticism ranking because customers are mad… and for good reason. The tell is when they refuse to change anything but still want “better SERPs.” If the strategy is purely to muzzle feedback rather than fix the root problem, that’s an easy nope.

Now, there is nuance here.

If you’ve got that one customer from hell who’s determined to burn your business down over a refund they don’t deserve (after eating the entire meal, of course), I’m not going to pretend that’s “accountability.” That’s extortion with extra steps.

In that case, I’m fine helping a brand put the record straight, document what actually happened, and make sure the truth is easy to find. But if you’ve got 200 angry customers saying the same thing and your only plan is to “SEO it away”? That’s not a reputation problem. That’s a business problem.

Scenario C: The hard “no.”

If there’s serious harm, fraud, abuse, or violent history and the goal is to make that harder to discover, I’m out. And honestly, forget the ethics debate for a second. I don’t want my name associated with that. Ever. Never ever. Ever, ever. No-way. 😅

“But SEO is just a service…” (counterargument + rebuttal)

I can already hear the pushback: “We’re not judges,” and “If I don’t do it, someone else will.”

And look, let’s be real. Not everyone gets to choose their projects. If you’re in-house, you’re assigned work. If you’re at an agency, leadership might sell something before you ever hear about it. You might not be in a position to quit on principle, and I’m not going to sit here and pretend that’s an easy call when you’ve got bills to pay.

But “I was just following orders” can’t be the end of the conversation.

That logic generates excuses. It turns every decision into a shrug and a paycheck. No standards. No spine. Just another cog within the “internal politics” engine.

You don’t need to be the morality police to have boundaries. You need a line you won’t cross and the willingness to raise your hand when the work smells off. Have the conversation with leadership. Push for a policy. Document concerns. Ask the uncomfortable questions.

Because the second you tell yourself, “it’s not my problem,” you’ve volunteered to be the name attached to it when it inevitably blows up.

What ethical SEO/AI looks like in practice

What does ethical SEO and AI look like in practice? It’s boring in the best way: standards, documentation, and honesty.

Write down your boundaries. Literally. “Here’s what we won’t take on.” Ask harder intake questions before you say yes. Put “truth + transparency” in the brief, not as a vibe, as a requirement. And if a client wants a reputation lift, make it conditional on real-world fixes: product changes, policy updates, refunds, better support, public clarification. If nothing changes in reality, don’t pretend a new narrative will save them.

Ethical SEO is simple: don’t be a consultant for villains.

~Nick

A note from our sponsor: North Star Inbound

Digital PR is not just top-of-funnel anymore. In GEO, authority compounds.

In a recent campaign, we generated 4,400 links in 20 months for Preply. If you want earned media that strengthens long-term discoverability, we can help.

Book a call.