From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 09:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: A Rumor and Reputation Paradox...
Message-ID: <v03020945af76bb8cd2a1@[139.167.130.246]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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/