10 ms·
Shell social media oil spill a 'coordinated online assassination'
- hcurtiss 14y agoWhat's shocking to me is the blatant manipulation of the mob. Maybe this has gone on forever, but seeing it happen in real time on sites like Reddit is tripping me out. While I think my BS filter is more sophisticated than most, on the morning it was released I sent the Shell party video to a colleague to ask if he was there not realizing it was a spoof. Turns out he happened to know there was no such party. I feel like the internet is becoming an increasingly dangerous place, and subtly so.
- k3n 14y agoI'd pity them save for the fact that big oil has been 'blatantly manipulating the mob' for decades now, at the detriment to our environment. The dangers of the mob are very real though, as many people's lives have been ruined (or nearly ruined) through some misinformation that goes viral.
- hcurtiss 14y agoI guess the interesting part to me is that, with the advent of news aggregators and social networks, the internet kind of removes the filter. A blatant lie can take off like wildfire and burn a lot of people before anyone can mobilize to put it out. Maybe I give journalists too much credit, but before the advent of the internet as we know it today, these organizations (whether big oil or Green Peace), had to filter the information through some sort of intermediary first. Now they have direct access to millions of people.
- k3n 14y agoYeah it's definitely a double-edged sword. Like the person whose house was posted to Craigslist with a "come and take what you want", which people did....and only too late did the owner find out -- and of course, he made no such offers. But the mob was quick to act and didn't ask many questions. On the brighter side, there's quite a few exposés that we now witness that would have never seen the light of day otherwise (or would have been relegated to B-theaters, flea markets, and mail-order catalogs).
- chmike 14y agoMaybe free speach has something wrong in it when taken to the word.
- cluda01 14y ago"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." -Mark Twain
- progrock 14y agoIsn't it about time we embraced the semantic web? At least then we'd have an audit trail.
- lmm 14y agoNo. Those are pretty orthogonal notions (if you're talking about the idea that you excerpt existing pages that's not really what semantic web means nowadays), and the semantic web remains a terrible idea. What we need is a more efficient legal process for online statements that cross the line into defamation, and better collaborative filtering (the whole point of sites like reddit is that the truth should out).
- rickmb 14y agoIf you are shocked by the "blatant manipulation of the mob", the advertising you see all around you every day, everywhere must put you in a permanent state of catatonia. How come the combination of internet and activism is suddenly "dangerous", and not the pervasive and misleading propaganda we've been subjected to for generations? Shell can no longer drown out the opposition with millions of dollars and now it's a problem?
- tdhs78 14y agoWe have laws against false advertising. What specific false advertising is Shell currently bombarding us with?
- cypherpunks01 14y agoGreenwashing is their primary mode of false advertising, here are two examples: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/13/corporatesocialresponsibility.fossilfuels http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/13/corporates... http://www.care2.com/causes/shell-tries-to-greenwash-fracking-in-south-africa.html http://www.care2.com/causes/shell-tries-to-greenwash-frackin...
- tdhs78 14y agoFrom your 4-year-old article: Shell had responded to the challenge that the accepted definition of the phrase "sustainable development" was "development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Is that definition highly controversial now? In any event, that certainly does not constitute a massive propaganda campaign against the public.
- analog 14y agoIn any event, that certainly does not constitute a massive propaganda campaign against the public. Well it depends how much they spent on it no? I'd guess that Shell spends vastly more on putting it's point of view across than Greenpeace is able to.
- Mvandenbergh 14y agoReddit is almost comically credulous, show them something they want to believe and they'll be all over it.
- Tobu 14y agoPlease, no. Don't try to make us feel superior by disparaging the other aggregator. Even if there was a competition, blanket statements on a community would not impress.
- Rhino55 14y ago"What's shocking to me is the blatant manipulation of the mob." Wait. What? You're "shocked"? Um. This is 2012, you know. Mobs are made to be manipulated. That's pretty much the whole point of a mob. Mobs do not win Nobel Prizes in physics. They do not negotiate peace treaties. And, by the way, journalism is essentially the precursor to 4chan (trolls trolling trolls trolling...) Case it point: a well-known quote about journalistic trolling turns out to be a troll. http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=2429 http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=2429 tl;dr get over yourself
- Angostura 14y agoAnd yet it was the Reddit comments that pointed out that the "Shell" Twitter account cited in the article is also (probably) fake.
- kahawe 14y ago> blatant manipulation of the mob I am sorry but a LOT of the big, influential NGOs are very guilty of that and of abusing polemic and demagogy. They seem to think their generally just causes/ideals justify almost all means. Sometimes they are more clever to play their cards right like in this case, sometimes they do a really terrible job and it backfires like when they attacked Apple over the completely made-up energy consumption of a shared hosting facility. But either way they are and always have been consciously using rhetoric means to manipulate people or to at least be heard. This is nothing new - haven't you ever been stopped by them in the streets when they are trying to sign you up for monthly donations? The tactics they are using there are nothing short of slimy car salesmen and ripe with psychological mind-frakks. This is nothing the internet allowed to happen, it has always been there. But the "good old days" when mostly techs were using the web and when the general signal-to-noise-ratio was better are over.
- sophacles 14y agoBut advertising in the traditional way isn't blatant manipulation of the mob? Sorry, this doesn't pass the laugh test.
- redthrowaway 14y agoWow. This is absolutely fascinating. With this campaign, Greenpeace has shown more Internet savvy than the vast majority of professional "viral" marketers. I'm not going to weigh in on the moral aspects of this incident, as I don't particularly care. I'm far more interested in the mechanics of how this was pulled off, as it has huge implications for corporations, activists, and even political candidates. I could easily see some Obama supporter pulling something similar and creating a firestorm around the Romney campaign. Love it or hate it, these tactics are here to stay. It will be incumbent upon entities with interests in online perceptions to guard themselves against these kinds of attacks and, should the pros outweigh the cons, engage in them as well.
- mcantelon 14y agoGreenpeace enlisted the amazing Yes Men as consultants via their thinktank: http://www.yeslab.org/ http://www.yeslab.org/.
- noahlt 14y agoA brief glance at their previous work shows that spreading hoaxes via social media seems to be their modus operandi.
- archangel_one 14y agoAnd traditional media - their Bhopal apology hoax was done via a TV interview.
- raverbashing 14y agoyou seem to have forgotten the words "fsking amazing" between apology and hoax See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI
- archangel_one 14y ago
- bostonvaulter2 14y agoI think threatening legal action over posting a link to the fake ads is overkill.
- defen 14y agoThe threatening tweets are part of the brand assassination, not actually from Shell.
- bostonvaulter2 14y agoOh, that wasn't very clear from the article.
- jacobolus 14y ago"It also has tweeted repeatedly that the account is in fact a legitimate Shell account. But of course, it, too is a fake. Not that web users realise."
- pyre 14y agoIt's easy to overlook. The text of the tweet and the immediately following article text run together: http://imgur.com/OHq5z http://imgur.com/OHq5z
- corin_ 14y agoOne of the downsides of disabling javascript is that you may not see websites as they intend you to see them.
- pyre 14y agoI'm only using Ghostery, I wouldn't expect that to affect the main content of a site. Ghostery's blocked list: DoubleClick Facebook Connect Google +1 Google Adsense Google Analytics LinkedIn Widgets NetRatings SiteCensus ScoreCard Research Beacon Twitter Button Tynt Insight ... just disabled Ghostery, and one of those is affecting the article content.
- iand 14y agoThe damage will really be done when Shell respond in kind and fake greenpeace campaigns spring up everywhere. Disinformation warfare.
- westbywest 14y agoThe article all but suggests that Shell actually do this. While part of me thinks Shell doing its own satire / misinformation campaign would be the most effective response (legal action would just attract more attention), I have a hard time imagining such misinformation campaign having anything but further negative effect on Shell's public branding.
- Tobu 14y agoThe journalist let social media brand consultants write about half of the article, of course they would suggest escalating. Shell raising public awareness of shills would be an awesome move.
- nzmsv 14y agoFor me, this just makes Greenpeace look bad. I wonder when we will see an "online assassination assassination": a purposely concocted lie that looks like it is spread by another party, designed to "backfire".
- jlgreco 14y agoHonestly, I think the jury is back on Greenpeace. Either you already think they look bad, or you are a fan of their work. I don't imagine many people are going to be forming new opinions on them in 2012.
- brc 14y agoI dislike Greenpeace with a fervour shared with few other groups. They constantly try and damage companies, which has a very real flow-on effect on peoples livelihoods. Usually their campaigns are built on a base of lies and usually over something the target company has very little control over anyway. The damage they do to legitimate environmental concerns with their jack-assery is untold. In truth they are just a corporate machine built to collect more donations. I go out and pick up rubbish, help monitor local wildlife and generally try and help out. This afternoon I told off a pair of kids trying to destroy a tree for kicks and made sure they didn't come back. The only people I meet from Greenpeace are very unpleasant and a Greenpeace shirt never appears at local cleanups and volunteer days.
- GeneralWaste 14y agoI expect this sort of action from The Yes Men, as they are 'culture jamming' activists and this is their modus operandi. Considering the levels of influence multinational corporations such as Shell have on our world and on leading world governments I don't have an issue with a little impersonation to draw attention to issues such as these. I do have an issue with a charity doing this. Funds donated by Greenpeace supporters will have gone towards creating this assassination. IMO that's not justified.
- rimantas 14y agoI don't even consider Greenpeace environmental movement. For me they are just attention whores with unknown motives.
- glimcat 14y agoClever, but maybe not very wise. Doesn't this open Greenpeace up to all sorts of liability? You can bet Shell's legal team is already going over this in detail, and their response is not going to involve a bunch of retweet whoring on twitter.
- noonespecial 14y agoThese guys engage in actual naval combat on the high seas. I don't think they're afraid of lawsuits. If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't go anywhere near either side of that battle anyway.
- Maxious 14y agoThe vandalism by the local chapter this year has been hilariously misguided. They destroyed a GM crop experiment that was investigating the damage GM crops do, attacked a building they thought processed cage chickens but actually cut off the supply of free range eggs and destroyed fences that were protecting reintroduced native animals from predators in protest against culling kangaroos. We must destroy the village to save it? ;)
- steauengeglase 14y agoAt the end of the day that's why I'm perfectly happy with Greenpeace/etc doing their battling from the web. They get the ego rub they desperately desire and no fingers are brought close to dangerous machinery.
- rmc 14y agoIn theory, yes, Shell could sue. But it'd generate more PR and more negative attention. Shell want it to blow over. Litagation will not make it blow over.
- politician 14y agoAs funny as these spoofed ads are, isn't this exactly the sort of thing that libel laws are for? This is a fake site purporting to be, in fact, an official Shell site. I guess their domain name isn't hosted by GoDaddy otherwise the URL would probably already have been redirected to shell.com.
- praptak 14y agoThe Yes Men have a track record of impersonating big corps, maybe they count on the companies deciding not to add more fuel to the fire with lawsuits?
- cperciva 14y agoAs funny as these spoofed ads are, isn't this exactly the sort of thing that libel laws are for? No, not really. This is what charges of criminal impersonation are for.
- rmc 14y agoYes, in theory this is against the law and Shell could sue them. However, that might not be a good PR move. Greenpeace might fight back, they could go to trial, try to get documents, make claims about "Shell trying to censor talk about their artic drilling" etc. Shell hope this will all just blow over. Litagation will not help it blow over.
- shellox 14y agoimgur.com/a/ng9XT This was posted by @anonops on twitter and shell replied and took the ad generator down
- cubicle 14y agoEven the phrase "social media oil spill" puts Shell in a bad light. Devious.
- Uchikoma 14y agoI wonder what would people think if a.) Someone fakes a YC startup b.) Shell fakes Greenpeace We will remember this moment as the fake wars.
- pessimizer 14y agoa) If a tree falls in a forest? b) Congressional hearings, a revitalization of public interest in conservation, and Shell would be dealing with the fallout for decades.
- danmaz74 14y agoI just wonder why they targeted Shell with this new tactic, and not Exxon, the biggest oil company - is Exxon's environmental protection record better thank Shell's?
- saryant 14y agoShell just won permits to drill in the arctic, that's what the event in the fake video is supposedely celebrating.
- D_Alex 14y agoAging oil and gas industry engineer/project manager and environmentalist here. I really like this campaign! It provides an effective counter to the millions (billions?) of dollars the oil and gas industry expends in advertising and lobbying. In my 25 year experience, the western oil and gas industry is on the balance very responsible when it comes to health, safety and environmental protection. I would much rather have Shell explore the Arctic than say Lukoil. However, Greenpeace and other environmental activists are good part of the reason why western oil and gas companies are so concerned about the environment. In places where Greenpeace has low influence/support/visibility, things like this are pretty common: http://www.tropix.co.uk/region_files/azerbajn_03.htm http://www.tropix.co.uk/region_files/azerbajn_03.htm I have dealt with enough pointy haired bosses in my work to realise that without effective activism, health, safety and environment would often be improperly compromised wrt cost, schedule and throughput.
- progrock 14y agoI'm still perplexed that Oil companies bother to advertise at all. What's the point? I'd keep a low profile if I were them. People don't really choose where they fill their car on the company do they? It's more dictated by price and whether the station is en route to work. Good point about Greenpeace keeping the oil companies on their toes. Sad though that it has to be this way. To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing. I'm baffled that these companies aren't behaving more responsibly.
- Retric 14y agoPeople did react to the Exxon Valdez oil spill which IMO woke the oil companies up as to the value of pure image advertising.
- progrock 14y agoThere was a good TV program of a tear down of a decommissioned shell/esso rig from the North Sea oil field. On yesterday (Sun 22nd July.) Apparently there was a shift in European law, that now forces companies to tidy up after they've finished. Brought about after pressure from Greenpeace for Shell trying to ditch the Brent Spar in an underwater trough. Quite how you'd do this with anything deep sea is beyond me. Worth a watch though.
- ginko 14y agoI wonder how relevant the public image of an oil company really is. It's not like we buy gas because we love Shell. It's because we don't really have a choice.
- cafard 14y agoNews to me. If it weren't on HN, I would not have heard of it.
- dmor 14y agoThe the viral campaigners who made this revealed themselves over a month ago and this is linked to directly from the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InL4ONJh9fA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InL4ONJh9fA
- fowkswe 14y agoThis is stunt brilliant, but the truth of the matter is its not going to solve any problems. Don't get me wrong, I love that Shell oil is getting clowned, but other than possibly choosing a different brand of gas its not going to infect any meaningful human behavioral change. As long as people live in a world where you have to turn on an engine to do ANYTHING - and participate in an economy that depends on and encourages over consumption, oil companies will continue to thrive. Humans will continue to burn shit to live the dream and humanity will carry on its march towards extinction. Someone needs to find a way to convince people that using an automobile (or multiple automobiles) as a replacement for their legs is the real problem.