Edit: The solution is to fix the voting system, not to abuse it further because you believe you are virtuous.
> The solution is to fix the voting system
How do the people posting positive fake reviews do that? They're responding to fake reviews in the only way they can, by offsetting them. Yes, there's a better solution that Goodreads can implement, but only Goodreads can implement it; not any of the commenters you criticize here.
Since they can't fix the voting system, and absent any motivation from Goodreads to fix it, is it really bad for them to respond the best way they can using the only tools they have available? After all, if the voting system is widely abused by everyone to the point where it becomes a dumpster fire, maybe that will force Goodreads to care.
If burning the review section to the ground with garbage content forces Goodreads to take notice, I could see someone arguing that it is a morally productive, good action to take -- not just neutral, but in fact morally superior to any of the complaining we're doing on HN, since Goodreads is 100% not going to care about anything we write here.
I'm not certain I agree with that perspective, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I'm somewhat cautious about making a strong claim that offsetting fake reviews isn't a morally desirable action.
This depends on your basic values, but one could definitely argue that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system. Only sometimes do two wrongs make a right, and I'm not convinced this is one of those times.
People who post fake negative reviews also use this argument, combined with allegations of moral inferiority of their target.
When you ask "Was that the morally superior choice", what set of options are you considering? In my prior statement, I simply claimed that it can be argued that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system.