Glaucon, the brother of Plato, tells the story of Gyges, who, upon discovering a ring of invisibility, uses the power to take over the kingdom through rape and murder. The story is told as a thought experiment to Plato on justice, specifically whether any man, whether just or unjust, would be able to remain virtuous if allowed to commit a crime without being caught.

In their best-seller, Freakonomics, and specifically in the chapter about studies on cheating, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner posit that if morality represents the way we would like the world to work, then economics tries to represent how it actually works. They rephrased Glaucon’s thought experiment as whether any man could resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts would not be witnessed.

What if we add to the thought experiment by including the condition of there being more than one ring of invisibility? Let us say there were a hundred rings of invisibility, but they only work best if they are in proximity to each other. Would Gyges and his friends resist the temptation?

An example of this is the ongoing controversy involving Jeffrey Epstein. The focus is on the so-called Epstein files, which are a collection of documents, photos, and videos that describe the criminal and non-criminal activities of the financier and convicted child sex offender. Big names, both in business and politics, around the world have been identified in these files. Victims have filed cases against some of them.

While it may not be as global as the Epstein scandal, our own corruption scandal is an example of how social networks drive schemes. In the Senate investigations, the connections between the accused officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), members of the legislature, and local government units, as well as private sector contractors, were revealed.

As the investigations only centered on flood control projects, the extent of this network of cohorts is still incomplete. While the centrality of Epstein in both the financial and political networks is overwhelming and clear, the central node in the flood control corruption scandal has yet to be identified.

What both cases show is that when the social network around a central personality grows, there is some invisibility that accompanies that growth. This clustering creates an association amongst its members that protects them, but also creates an environment of risk-taking. There are no witnesses when everyone is a cohort.

While it may sound depressing, the chapter of Freakonomics does offer some comfort. Levitt and Dubner narrate the accidental study of Paul Feldman over his honor-based system of payment for the bagels he sold. This study answers Glaucon’s thought experiment-that yes, people are generally honest even if nobody is watching–at least 85 percent of the time.

Circling back to social networks, does this mean dishonesty has a higher probability in social networks? Social networks are hard to measure, given the privacy of data. Only through investigations are these connections and relationships revealed.

If invisibility is part of the moral risk of social networks, it does not nullify the benefits of building one’s network. In his book, Never Eat Alone, Keith Ferazzi explains how success requires building mutually beneficial relationships and maintaining a proactive network.

People need to build their social networks to communicate and receive valuable information. However, it is not only information that is transmitted through these social networks but also behaviors-some positive, others not so.

Growing up, my father always emphasized to my siblings and me the importance of choosing our friends wisely. He would often use the idiom, “Show me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are,” to caution us so we do not get into trouble.

Looking at the damage unfolding from the Epstein and flood control scandals, you begin to see the wisdom in his warning.