When a friend posts an urban legend on Facebook...

[Dogface]

I have a real problem with people spreading lies about any group in order to foment hate and dissent, and I will correct that.

That really bothers me too. The sucky thing is when you try to correct it and they still believe the urban legend or they say "Well, even if that isn't true, THIS GROUP/PERSON/POLITICIAN/WHATEVER IS EVIL AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW HOW MUCH THEY SUCK RAWR." I find it heinously unethical to attack somebody personally just because you don't agree with them and want to damage their reputation. I'll still want to defend a person or group against blatant lies, even if I don't agree with their politics or what have you. It really bothers me when people don't have a problem with using ad hominem attacks, but it's just another one of those things that I have no control over. I don't have to be okay with others using unfair attacks, but it's up to the other person to decide they're not okay with it.

[Hillia]

That bothers me too.  People have different opinions about politicians, public figures, etc, and if you disagree with me, well, that's fine.  But please, dislike the person because of their voting record/support for a given cause/reaction to a situation, not because you got an email forward that says EVERYONE READ THIS!!!!!!!!  PERSON X EATS BABY KITTENS FOR BREAKFAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dogface]

... EVERYONE READ THIS!!!!!!!!  PERSON X EATS BABY KITTENS FOR BREAKFAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hee. That made me giggle. 

[Kaylee]

To be a Galileo (or a Landa), it's not enough to be persecuted, you also have to be right.

...Asimov fan?

 

[Sharnita]

I think that if you wanted to let her know that it was an urban legend you should have messaged her privately instead of addressing it for all to see.  WHile urban legends might be a pet peeve of your others might be peeved by people who address in public what could have been addressed in private.  I think you were perfectly fine to let her know but doing it the way you did could like more like an attack then sharing a helpful insight.

[BettyDraper]

I used to be on the fence here but have decided that spreading misinformation is wrong and harmful to the public good, so no longer have no qualms any more about posting Snopes links and the fruits of my own research to all recipients.

People are amazingly brazen in what they will spread without fact-checking.  This is sort of OT but I once sat stupefied with astonishment at a corporate holiday dinner as a co-worker related to a breathless table of colleagues the dramatic tale of a burglary in which she lost a gold watch that was a graduation present from her grandma, and other items, as she slept unawares just feet from where the thieves had to have been, after they climbed in a living-room window foolishly left open due to the heat. 

The reason for my speechlessness was that she was describing a burglary that happened to ME!!  Which I had told  her about.  She adopted the story as her own and apparently internalized it enough that she could mesmerize her audience with the details as I sat five feet away!  I didn't say anything ... she was my superior.  But my boyfriend and I were in hysterics later re-enacting the scene.

[TamJamB]

I think that if you wanted to let her know that it was an urban legend you should have messaged her privately instead of addressing it for all to see.  WHile urban legends might be a pet peeve of your others might be peeved by people who address in public what could have been addressed in private.  I think you were perfectly fine to let her know but doing it the way you did could like more like an attack then sharing a helpful insight.

But correcting these things in private means that they will often continue to be passed on by people who received the original UL, but not the private correction.  That is why I always send the correction (politely worded, of course, and not hostile or attacking) to all recipients.  The OP did not use attacking language -- her correction was politely worded; in fact, she used the exact same sort of language I use when I correct an UL ("Nice story!  Wish it were true, but...").

People do get peeved at such corrections sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is rude or wrong to make them.  And when the UL is posted or passed publicly it only seems sensible to make the (polite) correction publicly also.

[Sharnita]

I think that if you wanted to let her know that it was an urban legend you should have messaged her privately instead of addressing it for all to see.  WHile urban legends might be a pet peeve of your others might be peeved by people who address in public what could have been addressed in private.  I think you were perfectly fine to let her know but doing it the way you did could like more like an attack then sharing a helpful insight.

But correcting these things in private means that they will often continue to be passed on by people who received the original UL, but not the private correction.  That is why I always send the correction (politely worded, of course, and not hostile or attacking) to all recipients.  The OP did not use attacking language -- her correction was politely worded; in fact, she used the exact same sort of language I use when I correct an UL ("Nice story!  Wish it were true, but...").

People do get peeved at such corrections sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is rude or wrong to make them.  And when the UL is posted or passed publicly it only seems sensible to make the (polite) correction publicly also.

If she sends a private message her friend could delete her post or post her own correction.  We've pretty much said that it is rude to correct another person in front of an audience.  How is this exempt?

[marcel]

I think that if you wanted to let her know that it was an urban legend you should have messaged her privately instead of addressing it for all to see.  WHile urban legends might be a pet peeve of your others might be peeved by people who address in public what could have been addressed in private.  I think you were perfectly fine to let her know but doing it the way you did could like more like an attack then sharing a helpful insight.

But correcting these things in private means that they will often continue to be passed on by people who received the original UL, but not the private correction.  That is why I always send the correction (politely worded, of course, and not hostile or attacking) to all recipients.  The OP did not use attacking language -- her correction was politely worded; in fact, she used the exact same sort of language I use when I correct an UL ("Nice story!  Wish it were true, but...").

People do get peeved at such corrections sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is rude or wrong to make them.  And when the UL is posted or passed publicly it only seems sensible to make the (polite) correction publicly also.

If she sends a private message her friend could delete her post or post her own correction.  We've pretty much said that it is rude to correct another person in front of an audience.  How is this exempt?

I believe it is only rude to correct a person in front of an audience, if that correction does not have any influence on the audience. In this case, the entire audience needs to be made aware of the correction, to prevent them from spreading the lie
Whether it is Facebook, e-mail, classes, or a party. When a person is telling lies, I think you have to correct that person, and make sure that his/her audience is aware that it was not true, as a form of damage control

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

I had an instance at school today during a meeting when someone said, "Don't worry, be happy!" Another teacher piped up, "And he (Bobby McFerrin, writer of that song) killed himself!" The principal (leading the meeting) nodded, "Yes, he did." Well, I couldn't help myself. Right there I said, "That's not true!" They both said it was. I said, "It's an urban legend. Check Snopes and you'll see!" The teacher sitting next to me agreed with me. So then the principal and the other teacher started making a joke about how the whole point falls flat if he didn't kill himself. But he didn't, geez!

[Perfect Circle]

In my job I am responsible for cascading information to the staff of the organisation I am working for. My previous company was very large and I used to get several requests for information cascade daily.

Several times people asked me to forward messages to 'alert people for their own good', stories like 'rat droppings on coke cans will kill you' or 'if this number calls you they'll steal your mobile phone account'.

My method of dealing with these requests was to politely tell the requestor that the information was an urban legend. I usually sent them the Snopes link too and no one came back to me to demand I sent their message out regardless.

However, I would not have done it in public. I think if someone posts an urban legend it is up to them to correct themselves in public. Providing with them with the correct information however is perfectly polite as long as it is done in a nice manner.

[BettyDraper]

[
[/quote]

I believe it is only rude to correct a person in front of an audience, if that correction does not have any influence on the audience. In this case, the entire audience needs to be made aware of the correction, to prevent them from spreading the lie
Whether it is Facebook, e-mail, classes, or a party. When a person is telling lies, I think you have to correct that person, and make sure that his/her audience is aware that it was not true, as a form of damage control

[/quote]

Exactly.  You aren't just correcting the person disseminating the bogus tales; you're correcting anyone who might have believed her. 

[hobish]

I believe it is only rude to correct a person in front of an audience, if that correction does not have any influence on the audience. In this case, the entire audience needs to be made aware of the correction, to prevent them from spreading the lie
Whether it is Facebook, e-mail, classes, or a party. When a person is telling lies, I think you have to correct that person, and make sure that his/her audience is aware that it was not true, as a form of damage control

I really like the way you put that, and i agree. Correcting misinformation that has been passed on to others is not like correcting someone's grammar or pointing out that they used the wrong fork for dessert.

[Sharnita]

I believe it is only rude to correct a person in front of an audience, if that correction does not have any influence on the audience. In this case, the entire audience needs to be made aware of the correction, to prevent them from spreading the lie
Whether it is Facebook, e-mail, classes, or a party. When a person is telling lies, I think you have to correct that person, and make sure that his/her audience is aware that it was not true, as a form of damage control

I really like the way you put that, and i agree. Correcting misinformation that has been passed on to others is not like correcting someone's grammar or pointing out that they used the wrong fork for dessert.

Actually, I'm sure that the people who would correct those things in public would make a similar argument.  They would claim that they were doing it so the others who might think it was OK/right were made aware that it was wrong/inappropriate and the (mis)behavior didn't spread.

[BettyDraper]

I believe it is only rude to correct a person in front of an audience, if that correction does not have any influence on the audience. In this case, the entire audience needs to be made aware of the correction, to prevent them from spreading the lie
Whether it is Facebook, e-mail, classes, or a party. When a person is telling lies, I think you have to correct that person, and make sure that his/her audience is aware that it was not true, as a form of damage control

I really like the way you put that, and i agree. Correcting misinformation that has been passed on to others is not like correcting someone's grammar or pointing out that they used the wrong fork for dessert.

Actually, I'm sure that the people who would correct those things in public would make a similar argument.  They would claim that they were doing it so the others who might think it was OK/right were made aware that it was wrong/inappropriate and the (mis)behavior didn't spread.

They might have a point.  But misinformation can theoretically do more harm than using the wrong fork or saying "ain't."

Correcting a personal gaffe or trait is not on the same level of public interest as scotching a derogatory Internet rumor about, say, Procter & Gamble or the President of the United States.