Kjedebrev og underskriftskampanjer på mail - selv om det virker å være for en god sak

[Tallulah]

For et par dager siden fikk jeg tilsendt et kjedebrev til støtte mot en aldeles grusom sak som selvfølgelig engasjerer og gir lyst til å hjelpe. Problemet er at det ikke hjelper, det gjør som regel vondt verre.

I dette tilfellet handlet kjedebrevet om små barn som blir voldtatt i Sør-Afrika for å kurere HIV. Teksten inneholdt mengder av faktafeil, den var på norsk og man fikk beskjed om å sende kopi til en adresse i Sør-Afrika for hver 240 underskrift.

Etter enkel googling fant jeg ut at adressen tilhørte politiet i Sør-Afrika og var så vidt jeg kunne se en email-adresse man kunne melde fra om overgrep til. Når den blir overflommet med mailer, attpåtil på et fremmed språk skader man mer enn man hjelper. Innboksen blir full, viktige mailer kommer kanskje ikke igjennom og de går kanskje glipp av informasjon.

Hvis man virkelig vil hjelpe barn, støtt organiasjoner som Redd barna, UNICEF eller liknende.

Underskriftkampanjer på mail virker ALDRI og brukes ALDRI av seriøse organisasjoner.

Hver gang jeg får en slik mail pleier jeg å sende en link til breakthechain.org tilbake til den jeg fikk mailen fra, og alle andre vedkommende også har sendt mailen til. I tillegg legger jeg ved denne sjekklista:

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Breakthechain.org

The Seven Tests of Armchair Activism for Petitions:

1. Expiration. Does it give a timeline for the collection of signatures or a target number of signatures? Unfortunately, e-petitions can linger aimlessly for months, even years. Petitions that are allowed to circulate indefinitely are seldom compelling and very often continue to circulate long after any usefulness they may have once had has passed. (For example, the Jamie Bulger petition.)
2. Focus. Does the message have a well defined target and mission statement? Does it clearly spell out what steps or results are desired? Does it solicit and allow signatures only from constituents of the party it's meant to influence? Most e-petitions get you worked up, but make no real statement or demand (For example, the Bonsai Kitten petition), or target an individual who has no authority to make the desired change (for example, the petition to President Bush to reinstate prayer in schools.
3. Integrity. Is someone coordinating the petition to make sure it gets to the proper party in the proper format? Unfortunately, many ask you to send them directly to the party whose actions you're trying to influence. This amounts to an "e-mail attack," costs the recipient time and money and does more to hurt the cause than promote it. (For example, the appeal to the United Nations to stop a war against Iraq.)
4. Privacy. Is there an alternative method for signing, such as a Web site, phone number, or snail-mail address? Does the message explain clearly what will be done with the information it collects and by whom? If you're directed to a Web site to sign, does the site include a privacy statement? Remember that there are absolutely no privacy protections for information sent via e-mail.
5. Reliability. Does the message explain clearly who will collect and compile the signatures, and can you trust them? While some petitions actually give you an address to send "full" copies to, most of the creators fail to check with their e-mail provider first, and as a result, their account is usually shut down within a few days. Most e-mail providers prohibit chain letters and petitions in their terms of service. (For example, the petition to stop the Taliban's War Against Women.)
6. Sponsorship. Does the petition's author/originator clearly identify himself or herself and give some way to contact him or her. A well-planned political or social cause will usually have a web site or phone number you can contact for more information on the issue and to volunteer to help. Unfortunately, most e-petition creators prefer to hide behind the anonymity of e-mail. (For example, this campaign to stop a non-existent film about Jesus.)
7. Validity. Does the petition contain facts and statistics with a cited source? In other words, can the claims be easily backed up or do you have to take them at face value? In many cases, the thing you're trying to stop no longer exists or never existed to begin with. (For example, any of the collection of petitions to keep Instant Messengers free.)

If a petition fails two or more of the above, dismiss it as Armchair Activism.

Nå regner jeg med at alle her inne er oppegående og sikkert vet dette fra før, men informerer allikevel.