Hoaxes and Rumors on the Internet

If you do not find a hoax or rumor listed here, let me know. I will either list it or help you verify its accuracy. Please provide some proof of its inaccuracy first. It's actually easy and fun!

1. American Cancer Society Donation: Hoax
2. Budweiser Frogs Screen Saver: Hoax
3. Win A Holiday: Hoax
4. Kidneys Stolen By Doctors: Hoax
5. 90# Phone Scam: Partly Validated
6. Bill Gates' Thousand Dollar Offer: Hoax (August 6, 1998)
7. Join The Crew: Hoax (December 1, 1998)
8. Penpals: Hoax (December 1, 1998)
9. Internet Tax: Hoax (March 8, 1999)

1. Free Money: Hoax/Parody (December 24, 1998)
2. Good Stuff/Alfonso Merkin (contains adult language) (March 1, 1999)

Over the years I have received plenty of email containing chain letters, public service announcements and rumors. It has been my experience that nearly all these types of mail are purposefully or accidentally inaccurate or misleading.

What disappoints me most of all is that people forward them without bothering to validate them, yet most of the warnings can be successfully debunked with just a few minutes of research.

Their general style usually consists of informing the reader of a very important notice, and urges the reader to send the email to everybody they know.

Some of these mail messages are legitimate. For example, I have a friend who occasionally sends me petitions regarding FDA policies. These request that I send email to my congressman or the FDA, etc. Most of the time what he sends me is accurate (though I don't forward it.) Sometimes when I research the rumor or petition, I find a second opinion that makes me think twice about the original content.

What is amazing is that Craig Shergold e-mail still appears throughout the Internet. What is unbelievable is that his story appears in storefront windows. (You know, he's still 9 years old?)

Look, I've done it, too. I've spread plenty of inaccurate information through the Internet without verifying it first. I just hope I don't do it again.

If you get an e-mail warning you, or offering you to take part in a chain letter, it's a great idea to verify its accuracy. Besides, it's interesting and fun. And what the heck, you might actually learn something. Psst! Some of these resources are available at the bottom of this page!

The Internet is a great place to start. Very often I'll start with Yahoo, and search for some key information contained within the message's contents. For example, I might type in "Virus Hoax", or "Join The Crew", "Craig Shergold". If the message mentions the FCC, I might look for the FCC web site, and search in there. I can usually resolve most of them in less than ten minutes, and by then I've discovered the allegations in the e-mail are False. Sometimes the contents are just inaccurate, and the summary in the e-mail content is misleading. Those are just as bad as propagating something that is completely false.

When you've got proof that a chain letter's contents are inaccurate, it's a good idea to reply right back and inform the sender. Generally, include the following information:

I used to suggest that you mildly chastise the originator. I've found that that doesn't necessarily work so well. It's much better to be responsible and set a precedent of a polite environment than it is to frighten a newbie with your brilliance and arrogance.

If you are going to slam someone for being inaccurate, be darn sure you're right. After all, that person sent e-mail without doing any homework, are you any better for wasting bandwidth by doing the same? The book Netiquette, by Virginia Shea, has some good things to say about being forgiving.

Should you copy everybody on their To: lists? Your choice, but be prepared to accept the responsibility of publicly humiliating somebody, and be prepared to apologize if you turn out to be wrong!

Look, I'm just some guy. When you see that there is an entry on this page for a letter you've received, don't take it for granted that it's accurate. Go ahead and visit the links underneath. It will only take a minute, and will leave you better informed.

1. Anything that says "Quickly pass this on to as many people as possible" is suspect.
2. Microsoft is not an authority on viruses, even viruses springing from its technology. Neither is IBM nor AOL. Symantec Anti-Virus Research Center (SARC) and Network Associates are more reliable.
3. If it were reliable I would receive smaller emails from people in the technology community that I knew and respected. They would not use panic-inducing language; they would not urge me to send this to as many people as possible.
4. Anything with many levels of history (all the > symbols) means that the original author cannot be held accountable.

[Back to Top]

[Go to Rob's Ego Trip]