Fw: [ukanimalrights] Emailing: snopes.com Internet Petitions

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

An article relevant to the earlier discussion about email petitions...

 

John

-

Veronica Titchener

ukanimalrights

Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:30 AM

[ukanimalrights] Emailing: snopes.com Internet Petitions

 

 

 

 

PLEASE FORWARDARD

 

--------

. Home

 

. Search

. Send Comments

. What's New

. Hottest 25

Legends

. Odd News

. Glossary

. FAQ

. Donations

 

--------

. Autos

. Business

. Cokelore

. College

. Computers

 

--------

. Crime

. Critter Country

. Disney

. Embarrassments

. Food

 

--------

. Glurge Gallery

. History

. Holidays

. Horrors

. Humor

 

--------

. Inboxer Rebellion

. Language

. Legal

. Lost Legends

. Love

 

--------

. Luck

. Old Wives' Tales

. Media Matters

. Medical

. Military

 

--------

. Movies

. Music

. Photo Gallery

. Politics

. Pregnancy

 

--------

. Quotes

. Racial Rumors

. Radio & TV

. Religion

. Risqué Business

 

--------

. Science

. September 11

. Sports

. Titanic

. Toxin du jour

 

--------

. Travel

. Weddings

 

--------

. Message Archive

Home --> Inboxer Rebellion --> Petitions --> Internet Petitions

 

 

Internet Petitions

 

 

Claim: Signing and circulating online petitions is an effective way of

remedying important issues.

 

Status: False.

 

Origins: The 2000s have seen the birth of an Internet phenomenon: the

e-petition. It offers instant comfort to those outraged by the latest ills of

the world through its implicit assurance that affixing their names to a

statement decrying a situation and demanding change will make a difference. That

assurance is a severely flawed one for a multitude of reasons.

 

Often petitions contain no information about whom they are ultimately

intended for and instead are no more than outpourings of outrage. Expressions of

outrage are fine and good, but if they don't reach someone who can have impact

on the core problem, they're wasted. Thus, a petition that doesn't clearly

identify the intended recipient may have some small value as a way for its

signers to work off angst, but as an instrument of social change it fails

miserably.

 

Even those that clearly identify the intended recipient don't come with a

guarantee that the person slated to receive the document is in any position to

influence matters. A misdirected petition is of no more use than an undirected

one - though the voices it contains may be shouting, they won't be heard.

 

Even well-addressed, well-thought-out petitions have their problems, chief

among them the lack of a guarantee that anyone is collecting and collating the

signatures or will deliver the completed documents to the right parties. The

mere existence of a petition doesn't warrant that anyone will do anything with

it once it is completed.

 

Moreover, petitions aren't the instruments of social change we'd so dearly

love to believe they are. Yes, a petition festooned with a zillion signatures

can have some influence, but only as a tangible proof of a subset of public

opinion, and only upon those whose welfare is dependent upon public opinion (eg.

politicians). Those signatures aren't votes, and they aren't treated as such by

the governing bodies that have to decide on the tough questions of our times. At

best, they're seen as an indication of the public's will, no more.

 

Petitions calling for the erection of a firefighters memorial or to have

next Thursday designated national performing arts day have some small hope of

success, but all bets are off when the question becomes more complex ( " Let's

solve the problem of poverty in the USA " ) or when acts taking place on foreign

soil are the subject of the angst ( " Let's end child rape in South Africa " ).

Difficult problems don't suddenly yield up simple solutions just because a great

many fervently hope they would, nor do foreign governments feel impelled to

change conditions in their countries just because folks in other lands are upset

by them.

 

All of the above applies to hand-signed and cyber petitions alike.

E-petitions, however, have one further shortcoming inherent to them that

entirely undercut any value the same documents might have had in paper-and-ink

form.

 

Paper-and-ink petitions are signed in a variety of handwriting styles,

each unique to its signer. Consequently, signatures on a paper-and-ink petition

cannot easily be faked else certain glaring similarities would show up in one

entry after another.

 

E-petitions, however, come with no such assurance - the same person could

have generated all of the signatures. Moreover, it takes little by way of

programming skills to create a sequence of code that will randomly generate fake

names, e-mail addresses, and cities (or whatever combination of same the

e-petition calls for). Once written, such a program can be executed with a

keystroke, resulting in the effortless generation of thousands upon thousands of

" signatures. "

 

Those in a position to influence anything know this and thus accord

e-petitions only slightly more respect than they would a blank sheet of paper.

Thus, even the best written, properly addressed, and lovingly delivered

e-petitions whose every signature was scrupulously vetted by the petition's

creator fall into the same vortex of disbelief at the receiving end that less

carefully shepherded missives find themselves relegated to.

 

Okay, so the average e-petition isn't ultimately worth the pixels it took

to create it - why are they so popular?

 

In a world beset by complex problems, the solutions of which will take

enormous amounts of time, money, and commitment, such simplification as the

e-petition provides a welcome relief. Imagine having the power to solve those

problems! Moreover, imagine having it merely at the click of a mouse!

 

Such is the appeal. A sense of powerlessness and lack of control over

events played out on the grand scale becomes replaced by the certainty that real

change can be brought about at the cost of no more effort than it takes to type

a few characters on a keyboard, just enough to display one's name on a growing

list of equally committed cyber activists. Through the magic of the e-petition,

those left feeling like bystanders to important events are transformed into

powerful agents for social change. It's heady stuff.

 

It's also illusion.

 

E-petitions are the latest manifestation of slacktivism, the search for

the ultimate feel-good that derives from having come to society's rescue without

having had to actually get one's hands dirty or open one's wallet. It's

slacktivism that prompts us to forward appeals for business cards on behalf of a

dying child intent upon having his name recorded in the Guinness World Book of

Records or exhortations to others to continue circulating a particular e-mail

because some big company has supposedly promised that every forward will

generate monies for the care of a particular dying child. Likewise, it's

slacktivism that prompts us to want to join a boycott of designated gas

companies or eschew buying gasoline on a particular day rather than reduce our

personal consumption of fossil fuels by driving less and taking the bus more

often. Slacktivism comes in many forms (and there are many other illustrations

of it on this web site; our goal was merely to offer a few examples rather than

provide a definitive list), but its key defining characteristic is its central

theme of doing good with little or no effort on the part of person inspired to

participate in the forwarding, exhorting, collecting, or e-signing.

 

For many, e-petitions satisfy the need to feel they are doing good and

thus somewhat quell that nagging feeling they should be doing more to make the

world a better place. As such, they serve a purpose as an outlet - those who

" sign " such missives experience a personal sense of accomplishment in tandem

with the warming sensation of having come to society's aid. Good feels like it

has been done in two directions - the signature helping a worthy cause, and the

act of signing helping the person who was moved to add his name to the petition.

E-petitions are sexy even when they don't have a hope in hell of helping to

accomplish their stated goals because they afford us an opportunity to bestow

upon ourselves a pat on the back rather than continue to feel guilty about not

doing our part. That nothing is really getting accomplished is almost beside the

point; we believe we've been part of something worthwhile and so feel better

about ourselves.

 

Because e-petitions are as popular as they are, a number of web sites have

sprung up to service the interest in them. That these web sites exist doesn't

impart to the lowly cyber petition any more credibility than it previously had,

nor does it imbue it with any more power to effect change. The presence of web

sites devoted to them (even well-constructed authoritative-looking ones) changes

nothing about e-petitions' inherent shortcomings. Those tempted to confuse the

appearance of legitimacy with legitimacy itself should keep in mind that many a

mark has been conned out of his life's savings by a smooth talker who had a

fancy, seemingly well-staffed office and impressive letterhead. Looks ain't

everything.

 

We're not going to offer an opinion on whether one site or another is

legitimate (i.e. the petitions it houses are actually delivered to those they

were intended for and all the " signatures " visitors provide are actually

appended to them). Those questions are far better directed by interested readers

to the sites themselves. Rather, we're going to acquaint our readers with one

further point they might not otherwise be taking into consideration.

 

Many of these sites display banner ads that generate revenues for the

sites' operators. That means every time someone visits to view or sign a

petition, the site's owners earn revenue. This happens whether or not there are

any real petitions, whether or not any petitions are delivered to their stated

recipients, whether or not the " signatures " collected are appended to them,

whether or not only the " signatures " collected are appended (versus the site's

owners adding to the list names they have generated). An entirely bogus petition

site will make money for its owners just as well as a real one would because

revenue is dependent on how many visit the site, not upon how many petitions are

completed and delivered to the named recipients, nor upon how useful cyber

petitions are.

 

Granted, a great many sites (e-petition and otherwise, such as this one)

carry advertising banners, and granted, the revenues gained through that are

often the only thing that keeps those sites operating. The presence of ads

doesn't indicate anything about the quality or integrity of a site that bears

them, but that those ads are there should be taken into consideration when

musing " Does this site exist for the purpose I would otherwise think it does? "

 

No matter what else can be said against cyber petitions (and so far we've

said a great deal), they do serve one actual valuable purpose: They can

sometimes be useful tools with which to acquaint folks with situations they

might otherwise have little, if any, knowledge of. For instance, in those days

prior to the September 11 attacks and the subsequent war on the Taliban, a cyber

petition decrying the condition of women in Afghanistan worked to enlighten many

as to what was going on half a world away. That the premise of the petition was

horribly flawed ( " If only the Taliban knew they were doing a bad thing, they'd

stop " ) doesn't change that it worked to bring information to people.

 

Of course, that same valid purpose could be better served by essays

circulated on the Internet. Essays, at least, don't foster this growing climate

of slacktivism, of participation at no cost, of lasting social change achieved

through no effort.

 

Those truly committed to righting the wrongs of the world are encouraged

to take pen in hand and craft actual letters to their congressmen or to whomever

they deem are the appropriate people to contact about particular issues. Real

letters (the kind that are written in a person's own words and sent through the

regular mail) are accorded far more respect than form letters (let alone

petitions), and that should be kept in mind by those intent upon being heard.

Yes, the effort it takes is far larger. But so is the potential for making an

actual difference.

 

Barbara " differences of opinion " Mikkelson

 

Info About an Internet Petition E-mail Attributed to Snopes.com:

Advice About Internet Petitions E-mail Falsely Attributed to

Snopes.com

Last updated: 9 June 2007

 

 

The URL for this page is

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp

 

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2008 by snopes.com.

This material may not be reproduced without permission.

snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.

 

 

--------

 

 

 

 

 

--

I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.

We are a community of 5.7 million users fighting spam.

SPAMfighter has removed 149577 of my spam emails to date.

Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

 

The Professional version does not have this message

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 2 Dec 2008, at 11:46, John Davis wrote:

 

> Hi,

>

> An article relevant to the earlier discussion about email petitions...

>

> John

 

[long article snipped]

 

Thanks John, but can you just post the URL next time ? (I believe this

one came from snopes.com, a very good source BTW.)

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

[Guest guest]

Hi Paul,

 

If you'd prefer. Once upon a time pasted material was preferred on groups to

urls, for the benefit of those who used dial up to download then read emails

offline (and also because links sometimes become inactive). But I guess in these

broadband days, that might be a thing of the past...

 

John

 

 

-

Paul Russell

Tuesday, December 02, 2008 5:49 PM

Re: Fw: [ukanimalrights] Emailing: snopes.com Internet

Petitions

 

 

On 2 Dec 2008, at 11:46, John Davis wrote:

 

> Hi,

>

> An article relevant to the earlier discussion about email petitions...

>

> John

 

[long article snipped]

 

Thanks John, but can you just post the URL next time ? (I believe this

one came from snopes.com, a very good source BTW.)

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

--

I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.

We are a community of 5.7 million users fighting spam.

SPAMfighter has removed 149641 of my spam emails to date.

Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

 

The Professional version does not have this message

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks John -

 

It's not just that - some people like to receive the mailing list in

digest form and it makes for a huge digest if people post whole

articles (or don't trim their posts !).

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

On 3 Dec 2008, at 08:59, John Davis wrote:

 

> Hi Paul,

>

> If you'd prefer. Once upon a time pasted material was preferred on

> groups to urls, for the benefit of those who used dial up to

> download then read emails offline (and also because links sometimes

> become inactive). But I guess in these broadband days, that might be

> a thing of the past...

>

> John

>