Comments | andrewducker: Interesting Links for 21-07-2012

andrewducker

Back to all threads

marrog July 21 2012, 11:15:52 UTC

The second, larger problem, is that Greenpeace lied to us. This wasn’t a nod-and-a-wink parody; this was a dedicated effort to deceive. They played the public for patsies and herded them like sheep. That kind of contempt for the people whose support (financial and otherwise) they need is inexcusable.

This assumes that everyone went "OMG how incompetent are Shell?"

To me, it was obvious as soon as you read any of the copy on the hoax site that it was a nod-and-wink parody, and I don't think I'm particularly sharper than the average joe about these things. There's an assumption being made on the part of this writer that I think is unfair. If Greenpeace were guilty of anything in this regard, it was only of giving the visitors too much credit - and I'm not even sure about that.

andrewducker July 21 2012, 11:21:48 UTC

II saw aa lot of people taking it seriously. iI think you underestimate your hoax spotting abilities.

marrog July 21 2012, 11:25:48 UTC

I feel like in most cases it was down to laziness - I initially went "Woops, Shell are being trolled" - then I read some of the copy, and it was immediately apparent that it was a hoax. I find it very hard to believe anyone on my flist would've taken it seriously if they'd actually read the copy, and not just looked at the phototrolls. It was plausible that Shell could've made the mistake of doing crowdsourced ads. It isn't remotely plausible that they'd write such obviously parodic copy.

andrewducker July 21 2012, 11:52:27 UTC

Your friends list is also smarter than average, and I'd expect them to also be good at spotting hoaxes.

philmophlegm July 21 2012, 12:16:02 UTC

It fooled me and I'm _very_ smart ( ... )

inamac July 21 2012, 13:03:01 UTC

It fooled me too. Back in the 80s, when I was working for the Environment Department, we had a seminar on 'public consultation and lobbying techniques', and Greenpeace was one of the organisations whose techniques were considered groundbreaking and (from the admittedly skewed POV of politicians) ethically iffy.

So it's hardly surprising that they've embraced the options for internet 'lobbying' in the same spirit.

cartesiandaemon July 23 2012, 08:09:46 UTC

It seems like:

Greenpeace have done sketch publicity things for the cause before, so no-one would be very surprised if they _did_ do something like this intending it to be taken seriously.

If it _was_ intended as parody, many people found it excellent.

No-one is sure whether it was intended to frame Shell for incompetence, intended as parody, or "intended as parody, but we hope lots of people will be taken in and we're ok with that, though we may deny it later". Mostly people decide what it was intended as based on how they perceived it, so "it was great" people and "it was scummy" people are not disagreeing about whether a specific action was good/bad, but disagreeing about which greenpeace intended.

Back to all threads