AOL users and Urban Legends

Usually I get no reply at all when I reply with the results of my Snopes check. I always include the link hoping that they will get the hint that this is something that they can do themselves when they receive one of these stories, rather than just automatically forwarding it on to all on their list.

I am sure they are not happy that I am pointing out that they were wrong. I don't usually send the reply to all that they sent the UL to, that would embarass them. I will send it on to the people I know on the email so they are aware that the story is false, though.

I keep hoping that eventually it will sink in that they can actually check these things out before they send the "panic" on to others.
 
Today I received another Urban Legend email from one of my friends. This one was about hotel keycards as a way for people to steal your identity. It sounded fishy to me immediately, so off I went to Snopes and within 30 seconds I had confirmed that it was indeed an UL and quite, quite false. I replied to the email, told her it was false and gave her the link to the Snopes page with the info.

I have noticed that I get these forwarded by my friends who are AOL users. I can't recall an instance of one coming from anyone else. I have never used AOL as a service provider so I don't know if there is something in particular about their environment that somehow makes them more prone to passing of this nonsense without checking the veracity of it or if it just the type of person who chooses AOL that makes them more prone to it or if I am just seeing a pattern that is not there.

I have a couple of these pests as well and, funnily enough, neither are AOL users. I do think there is a personality "type" involved here which probably does favor the AOL user profile. They tend to just accept any old crap that is thrown at them, they never change their pattern of behavior and they are only capable of credulity and not capable of curiosity.

That sort of user was AOL's bread and butter for a very long time.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to agree with tkingdoll. I used to receive an awful lot of these "hey isn't this neat?" emails from people, especially at work, and would try to reply nicely at times. For example, the first few times I received the "forward this email to 50 people and Bill Gates personally will send you $100!" email, I replied back, "I don't think this is true according to snopes, but let me know if it works for you." I never received an answer if it did work. (What a shock)

The one that really got to me was this autumn, and being told (yet again) that Mars will be the closest to Earth that its ever been blah blah blah. I have a very soft spot for astronomy, so I replied-all with the link to snopes and to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site. I thought I got the point across, until I overheard two people talking in the office:

"Did you see Mars last night?"
"Oh my god, it was gorgeous! Did you see it?"
"It was stunning!"

I rarely get these emails from coworkers any more, but judging from that conversation, I would guess it's because people see me as too much of a party-pooper. People like their little OMG! stories, and don't bother to see if it's true.
 
I rarely get these emails from coworkers any more, but judging from that conversation, I would guess it's because people see me as too much of a party-pooper. People like their little OMG! stories, and don't bother to see if it's true.

Yes, the power of gossip. No one ever really cares if it is true, they just enjoy spreading it.

Hhhhm, now I am wondering, have there been any studies on gossip? What drives it? Why we participate even when we suspect it is untrue?
 
Yes, the power of gossip. No one ever really cares if it is true, they just enjoy spreading it.

Hhhhm, now I am wondering, have there been any studies on gossip? What drives it? Why we participate even when we suspect it is untrue?

Well, from what they say, it all stems from a desire to gain attention due to mother issues in your childhood. ;)

In all seriousness, that is an interesting question if and who has done studies on this. We as humans are curious creatures, and we love to send and receive information. Why we would pass on information that we aren't sure is true, or even highly suspect to be untrue and yet tell it anyway as if it was true, that's the big question.

But isn't this the underlying theme at the JREF?
 
Many people get really angry when you reply with a link showing their email is an UM.
[snip]
They want to be popular and accepted, and the forwarding of UMs, particularly those regarding scams, is part of a 'look at the favour I'm doing for you all, I could be saving your life/bank account here!' - it's done out of kindness so the debunking is basically a slap in the face of what's considered to be a favour. Also, there is a huge element of 'better safe than sorry' - the logic being that even if the email is an UM, there might be some truth in it and therefore worth forwarding.

What are UMs?
 
Dear AOL users

If you simply must forward me chain letters 'that can't be broken', 'totally true' urban legends, and petitions for me to sign against bills that have never been proposed, then at least strip off some of the hundred layers of circulation lists first, so I don't have to wade through all this crap before finding out what it is in your e-mail I have to ignore.

Thank you.
 
send your pests to me. My ex girlfriend used to send me lists of "facts" and annecdotes and ULs, but has stopped. I need my fix. I like debunking them, even if I don't send them back. I love fact checking and such, so if you have some particularly good ULs or "fact" lists, forward them to me at treble_head@yahoo.com
 
Dear AOL users

If you simply must forward me chain letters 'that can't be broken', 'totally true' urban legends, and petitions for me to sign against bills that have never been proposed, then at least strip off some of the hundred layers of circulation lists first, so I don't have to wade through all this crap before finding out what it is in your e-mail I have to ignore.

Thank you.

But I like the way you put it. I think I need to save this as a form letter in Eudora :D
 
The thing is, much of it simply doesn't need debunking, or at least presents no challenge at all. I was forwarded a petition asking me to add my name to a list of people opposed to Madeline Murray O'Hare's (note spelling) proposal to get all TV programs that mentioned 'God' off the air. It didn't seem to matter to the signers that O'Hair had been dead for ten years, and even when alive had proposed no such measure.
 
Oh the joys of Eternal September.

I used to get a lot of this kind of crap, but sending Snopes links every time pretty much ended that after a while. People got tired of me making them look like the idiots they were, I guess. Fortunately, few of them were people I'd consider friends, and the few that were grew up and got off of AOL.

AOL is the spawn of satan, a truly evil being that even the Great Old Ones fear. It's so easy and "idiot proof" that, of course, lots of idiots will use it. Back in the day, technical knowledge and skill was a bright dividing line between those who were intelligent enough to get online, and those who had trouble tying their shoes without help. Then along comes QuantumLink with the simplified networking; morphs into AOL and does the "dumbed down so far it makes developmentally disabled preschoolers look lik geniuses by comparison" and a world of morons gets connected. Fortunately, they were still an insular little world, completely seperate from the Great Experiement that was the Internet. They began to offer some Internet access, but it was limited and expensive. Still, it was the beginning of the end.

Then the unthinkable happened. AOL began offereing unlimited, free Internet access on top of their regular network. It became the first day of September, forever. Now, instead of being limited to it's own little cesspool, the sewage began to innundate the net. Before long, other services began touting their own "Simple enough for brain-damanged mongolids" services; and soon the entire net was eyeball-deep in untreated human wastes.

Then began the ascendency of the World Wide Web. The intelligence barrier had not merely been lowered, it had been removed entirely. Now everyone, everywhere, could have the same brainless, "even your dog can do it" access to the entirety of the Internet, through various web gateways, such as Google Groups; while creating entirely new platrorms for the weak-minded and vociferious to proclaim their self-important worthlessness. Gullible idiots were soon overwhelmed with many different contradictory lies to believe; and, unfortunately, managed to do so without their brains exploding. Not only is intelligence no longer a requirement, it's actually a hindrance in experiencing the 'Net in it's fullness. A whole generation has grown up with Internet access from the cradle, in an environment that strongly discourages the development of archaic, outmoded concepts such as "proper spelling and grammar", "effective communication skills", "common courtesy", "rational discourse", and "critical thinking".

And we're still waiting for October to happen.
 
4) Because of its simplicity of use, it is the system of choice for many computer neophytes.

My experience on AOL is that it is overrun with teens and bored housewives.

:p

I have the following customer conversation at least once per week:

Me: "What version of Windows are you using?"

Customer: "I don't use Windows I have AOL".
 
My experience is that the more you debunk, the less likely you are to receive the email, but that's only because the person stops including you in their mass spam.

At the company I was a network administrator at, we eventually ended up including virus-hoaxes in the procedures. People were no longer allowed to forward any type of email hoax to their entire address book unless we'd cleared it first. Our official story was that we didn't want other companies being able to hold us responsible if one of their employees messed up their computer because a virus hoax sent by one of our employees told them to, but we really wanted people to not send any more spam around.

Either most people stopped cluing us in and still forwarded it all, or the company really didn't receive that many hoaxes after all. Either way, most of the stuff we got were emails that had been floating around cyberspace for over a decade, like the "Budweiser frogs" thing for example.
 
Is it because the Internet by its nature is largely written (although that's changing), rather than spoken? An extension of the "if it's in print, then it must be true" thing?

Possibly. I think it also has to do with "Why would they say it if it wasn't true?"

As for the using snopes to debunk Urban Legends. I did that all through the last deployment this past spring, as well as the one I was on before that. Finally, about 4 months into this past deployment, one of my (theist) friends snapped at me in frustration: "Just because it's on snopes, doesn't mean it's true! You have too much faith in that site!"

:rolleyes:

Marc
 
Finally, about 4 months into this past deployment, one of my (theist) friends snapped at me in frustration: "Just because it's on snopes, doesn't mean it's true! You have too much faith in that site!"

:rolleyes:

A point the people at snopes tend to make themselves.

But to paraphrase Captain Kirk, I'd rather trust Snopes' hunches than many other people's certainties.
 
A lot of times when I question people on these they admit that they didn't really believe that hotel key cards could be used to steal your identity (for example), they just thought it sounded plausible enough to be possible, and they figured we all need reminding to be cautious.

:boggled:
 

Back
Top Bottom