I want to support children in Greece. And I trust SOS Children’s Villages. My family sponsors a child through them. But I dislike this campaign:

It wants me to email my friends telling them about the campaign. Not to ask them for money, just to ask them to email their friends about it. Apollo, a travel agent that does lots of business selling Norwegians summer holidays in Greece, will donate 10 kr to the campaign to help children in Greece for each of my friends who joins the campaign by sending their friends emails asking them to join the campaign too. My friends wouldn’t be asked to donate money to children in Greece. But by participating, SOS Children’s Villages gets their names on a mailing list and will send them emails in future.

I get that this might be a good way of increasing a mailing list while Apollo gets advertisements, but I *hate* chain mail so much there’s no way I’m forwarding this to friends. So instead I’ve donated directly to SOS Children’s Villages work for children in Greece, and I’d encourage you to do so too.

For international readers, look at SOS Children’s Villages website for your country.

I wonder whether campaigns like this one work. They probably do. Although everyone I speak to hates chain mail, it keeps being sent, so obviously works at some level… Does the campaign give you the creeps, or is it just me?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “Chain mail campaigns make me hate social media

  1. Thomas

    Your reaction is really interesting. I did not percieve this as chain-mail, but as ordinary advertising and a clever way to extend the reach of a campaign.

    When I think of chain-mail there is usually some sort of implied punishment involved (send this on or you’ll go to jail), but in this case it is completely open (although many people will probably overlook the Apollo connection) and a good way to spread information.

    I, personally, would be very careful about who I would send this too, but I might if I thought people i know where likely to be interested and even looking for a way to support the cause.

    I realize that I would be very annoyed if the campaign where a commercial one, like from McD’s or suchlike, but I manage to separate messages when I get them in the paper-mail, so why not when I get the same type of message mix online?

    1. Jill

      Yes, I was wondering whether my reaction was unusual, and perhaps it is. I am quite happy to spread the campaign on Facebook and on my blog, but really dislike the idea of forcing it onto my friends. Also, I dislike that I’m basically selling my friends’ contact information – 10 kr an email address. Although they CAN opt out, the email is sent through the campaign website, so obviously the emails are tracked and probably stored.

      Maybe my response is anachronistic? Not sure.

  2. Jeinine

    Nope, I hear what you’re saying, Jill.

    Your’s is a trust-worthy name amongst your friends, colleagues, co-workers, etc. So, surely, if you “pass along” their email address to even inquire about the campaign, some travel agent makes a buck. You’re doing the leg work for someone else.

    Raising awareness is one thing – so why aren’t you being compensated for spreading the info instead of Apollo?

  3. Clare Hooper

    Yeah, I’m with you on this one, Jill — I feel really uncomfortable about this kind of thing, perhaps because I feel so conscious myself of information overload. The last thing I want to do is be perceived as spamming my friends with more things (unless, of course, I’m passionate about it — but then I wouldn’t be hitting forward on something, but writing myself, you know?).

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.