Voluntary Viruses

Whoops, haven't posted in a while. All right, here's something I've been thinking about recently... chain letters. statuses that say "repost this to your status too!" Pictures that ask for as many shares as possible. Anything on the internet that has a "you have to spread this to as many people as possible" message. I'm sure there's an official term for this, but I'm calling it a voluntary virus. First of all, they are viruses; they reproduce constantly and spread through large portions of the internet. Secondly, they're the only type of virus that is spread through people deciding to pass it on. Most viruses take over software and force the computer to pass them on... but this virus is spread through human will. Pretty fascinating if you think about it.

A lot of people don't really care about voluntary viruses - if they get one, they just pass it on, no big deal. Some people take them very seriously. Some people really hate them, or at least find them frustrating to always have to deal with them. My personal reaction is one of curiosity - as I mentioned, I find the idea fascinating. Every time, I ask myself why someone would choose to pass it on... and sometimes, I do it myself, if I feel the reasons are good enough - if it's a funny joke or interesting idea, for example.

There's one type of voluntary virus that I truly despise, however.

Is it the "the more people you share this with, the more lucky you will be" kind, or the related "share this or something terrible will happen to you (you will break your leg tomorrow, or you will not be able to use Facebook for free any more)" kind? No, I find those really funny actually. Is it the "take a stand - prove who you are; only 1% will pass this on, be that 1%" kind? Not really - those do annoy me, especially when I realize how many people they're fooling (this kind of virus preys on people with low self-esteem, which I really don't like), and especially when they take the "stand up for your faith" approach, but I can't take them too seriously. That's another rant for another time if anyone is wondering about my thoughts on those, and on what I feel the proper response to these viruses are.

No, the type of voluntary virus that I just can't stand is the kind that says "if this gets 100 shares, or if you pass this on to at least ten friends, or whatever, then some person or organization will donate money so we can save this person's life."

Let's analyze this message for a bit. There are only two options (assuming we're sticking with the law of excluded middle, for anyone who cares) - it's TRUE, or it's FALSE.

Personally, I think the FALSE option is most likely most of the time. In this case, there really isn't an organization that will donate x amount of money for every person it's passed on to, and there isn't a beneficiary. If a message is in all caps or uses bad grammar, it's almost certainly in this category - someone donating money would definitely want to make a much more official-looking message. But anyways, the problem in this case is that the message is a flat-out lie. Now, most voluntary viruses have lies in them; but in this case, the people who pass it on believe that they are doing some good for someone else. So whoever concocted this virus is essentially taking advantage of people's desire to do good, and making them feel guilty if they don't pass on the message. At least most other voluntary viruses appeal to people's selfishness - "what will happen to you or your reputation if you don't send this on?" But this one strikes at a more vulnerable spot than most, and that's a pretty cheap trick.

But let's think about the more sinister option: what if it is TRUE? In this case, there is someone in need, and there is someone who has money and is willing to help whoever's in need... as long as enough people on Facebook get the message.

[pause for dramatic emphasis]

Did you catch that? Someone is out there, with the ability to help, with the desire to help... but only if enough people hear about it.

The very idea of something like this is truly horrific. Because if not enough people share, then the person in need won't get what he needs. Why on earth would someone do something like that? Can you imagine some rich guy, setting aside a couple thousand dollars to help out a dying child, and then saying "I'll save this child's life... but only if enough people on Facebook say I should." You might ask him...Why would you trust Facebook with that immense responsibility? Do you really care for this child at all? Are you just playing a game, when someone's life is at stake?

Note that this is very different from things like freerice.com, which actually do collect more money for each person that gets involved. Advertising companies, knowing that a lot of people will go to freerice.com, pay freerice money to put their advertisements up on the site, hoping that people will see them and buy the products. So every page view of freerice.com makes the site "more valuable" to the advertisers, so they pay more money to put up their ads, giving freerice.com more money to buy rice for people in need. It's a really clever setup; an example, I might say, of restoration in the mostly corrupt world of advertising. 

But none of these voluntary viruses carry any advertisements (as far as I know), so there's no way any money could be made off of the sharing itself. The only way any money could be made off the virus is by someone watching the virus and choosing to donate money as people see it. So again, we're left with the guy who could donate money, but chooses to make a game out of it instead.

This does raise a host of ethical questions... is this hypothetical rich guy doing more good than the people who don't donate any money at all, because there's at least the possibility of the person in need getting help?  Somehow I'm more comfortable with the idea of people who just don't help at all, than people who are willing to help but only if enough people know about it, and I'm not sure why... from a utilitarian perspective, the guy willing to donate is doing more to promote general happiness than the people who don't do anything. Maybe it's because he knows he has a duty to fulfill, and we know he knows it, but he's not willing to carry out the duty without some other form of compensation (a more deontological perspective)? Or maybe it's the lightness of their value of human life - the other guys, those who don't do anything, may have other concerns that get in the way - perhaps not completely justifiable, but understandable all the same. Of course, the right thing to do would be to help. But of these two alternatives (not helping, and helping if you get enough attention), why does the second option seem less justifiable than the first? Or is it just me?

Honestly, if I knew, for sure, in every single case, that the viruses were FALSE, I wouldn't mind so much - it would just be like any other voluntary virus that preys on the weaknesses of human psychology. Stupid, yes, annoying, yes, frustrating, yes - but I could live with it. There are many other stupid, annoying, frustrating things on the internet that you just have to get used to and learn to laugh at. But as long as there's even the possibility that these viruses are TRUE... it's enough to make me upset. Enough to make me write a decently long blog post about it.

I implore you: Share this blog post with everyone you know! Save the internet from the evils of voluntary viruses! Oh and also, if you send this to at least ten people in the next three minutes, you will find an envelope with $32,000 in your mailbox in the next three days.