Here's something from cyberia which talks about the persistence of anti-reputation memes even in the presence of perfectly contradictory information. We've all heard about apocryphal stories, the $50 Corvette and the like, but here's a case which has financial reprocussions. It reminds me of the "satanism" claims about the Procter and Gamble moon and stars corporate symbol a while back. My first attempt at tackling this would be some kind of distributed reputation system, but it seems to me that if someone I trusted said something bad about Mr. Hilfinger, in the absence of any other respectable data, I would believe them. I guess that means the need for reputation "rental", like what financial intermediaries do, and also what we now call journalism, will increase, not deminish, in geodesic markets. Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:58:30 -0400 Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Larry Kolodney <lkk@WORLD.STD.COM> Subject: Re: America Online and liability... the Horror To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Recall the libertarian maxim that the best response to offensive speech is more speech.
To anyone who actually believes this bit of 18th century enlightenment mythology, I would recommend the article "Dirty Linen: Why are they saying all those mean things about Tommy Hilfiger?" by Lakshmi Gopalkrishnan in the current edition of Slate (http://www.slate.com/TangledWeb/97-04-10/TangledWeb.asp). In essence, the article documents a number of vicious rumours which have been spread on the internet about the clothing designer Tommy Hilfiger and allegedly racist comments that he made on the Ophrah Winfrey show. Not withstanding the fact that 1) Mr. Hilfiger never appeared on the Winfrey show and never made the statements in question, and 2) Hilfiger Co. has engaged in an online P.R. campaign to counter these rumours, they are persistent and widespread. According to the article: BEGIN QUOTE A spotty paraphrase of the allegations appeared in a Nov. 13, 1996, article in the Philippine newspaper Isyu. Titled "Eat Your Clothes, Mr. Racist Designer," the piece has been excerpted on the Official Philippine Anti-Tommy Hilfiger site. The writer tiptoes around the charges, but is markedly less tentative when expressing her outrage. "I am shocked," she fulminates. "If [Hilfiger] really did insult my people, you can bet I will do every single thing I can in my power to make sure that his label never makes it here." Forums ranging from soc.culture.african.american to talk.rumors and Streetsound have been thick with anti-Tommy talk of late. When rumors of the designer's alleged racist outbursts filtered into the mainstream media, they were debunked by Time magazine, USA Today, and the Washington Post. But that didn't stem angry calls for a boycott of his products. Nor did the official response of the Hilfiger Corp. Claiming to have become aware of the brouhaha only recently, the company has posted a memo on various anti-Tommy sites detailing the "simple and incontrovertible facts": Hilfiger has never been on Oprah. Hilfiger has never been on Style. Far from wanting to limit his appeal, Hilfiger is on record about wanting to cross ethnic lines to appeal to everyone everywhere. *** In theory, the Web should be as good at eradicating legends as it is at cultivating them, but in practice, denials are quickly buried by new messages and updates. A week ago, Hilfiger's official response clogged newsgroup indexes. Today, it has been swamped by even newer anti-Tommy postings and returning favorites. END QUOTE Lest you think that such rumours are just a minor irritant and part of doing business, consider that, according to the article, "In the late 1980s, purported connections with the Ku Klux Klan so damaged the reputation of athletic-wear manufacturer Troop (whose name was rumored to be a Ku Klux Klan acronym for "To Rule Over Oppressed People") that it was forced into bankruptcy." So here we have vicious rumours being spread about a company with millions of public relations dollars at its disposal, and it is helpless in the face of a rumour that has not one grain of truth to it. After reading this account, how could anyone seriously argue beleive individuals such as the hapless Mr. Zeran have the slightest ability to counter defamation with "more speech" over the internet? (Note that Mr. Zeran did not even have an internet account!) Larry Kolodney --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/