BT 2006 trials of Phorm

[Ian Batten]

>
>
> That is why the McLibel two were able to take on

Actually (and I've made my point at greater length to Alex in the  
proverbial private communication) I draw the opposite moral.  I have  
nothing but the highest regard for Steel and Morris, I think they are  
not merely profoundly honest but also brave, and come over in the  
documentaries as also being rather nice people.

But the `victory' is rather pyrrhic: McDonalds are still in every  
street, their employment and sourcing practices are precisely the  
same, Dave and Helen have lost ten years of their life and anyone else  
planning a campaign against a major corporation now has a brutal  
demonstration of how tough it would be.  McDonalds may have lost in  
court, but I'd say they won in a larger sense: they've thrown a  
blanket of chilling effect over criticism of their business.

The problem with the McLibel case, and I think the Phorm issue is  
running a similar risk, was two-fold.

There comes a point, quite quickly, where the issue ceases to be about  
the company and becomes about the bravery, honesty and self-image of  
the critics.  The narrative stops being ``look what this horrible  
company is doing to its staff, customers and the country'' and turns  
into ``look what this horrible company is doing to its critics, but I  
won't back down because I  am brave and honest, unlike the faceless  
bureaucrats of my opponents''.  At which point the battle is, to be  
honest, lost and the company can just sit back and rub its hands with  
glee.

A lot of people have heard of the McLibel two, and (like me) admire  
their bravery.  How many of them know the first things about the  
criticisms that were being made of McDonalds?  Result for McDonalds:  
they can handle being seen as a bit heavy-handed over protest, because  
no one rational believes that companies like that are running nursery  
schools with flowery wallpaper.  What they can't handle is being  
accused of selling dangerous food and exploiting their staff:  
customers are much less tolerant of that.  Being accused of doing  
something most people think most businesses do (sniping at critics) is  
relatively safe; being accused of doing something most people think is  
the antithesis of your image (selling dangerous products) is really bad.

If Phorm/BT can turn this into a debate about the critics, and not  
about what is being criticised, they win.  A bunch of IT geeks cuts a  
similar figure to some vegan environmental protesters: amiable  
eccentrics, who the man in the street doesn't really listen to.

And secondly, at risk of sounding like I've read more Gramsci than is  
good for me, there's a confusion between `war of position' and `war of  
manoeuvre'.  If you read Cableforum or the BT Beta Forums or, worse,  
the comments pages on various blogs on the topic, it's filled with  
people who want the debate to happen at Web Speed.  Documents are made  
available, and within the hour there is endless speculation based on  
speed-reading, accusations of bad faith, demands for retraction, etc.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and more and more people pile in, making more  
and more lurid accusations based on mis-readings of things that are  
already based on mis-readings (and yes, before anyone says it, I  
personally have a long and ignoble track record of doing just this:  
consider this the lecture made from self-knowledge, not the lecture  
made from virtue).  What people seem to want is to provoke a reaction,  
to justify their protest to themselves by showing that they're  
``getting through'' to the object of their criticism.  I know that's  
the psychology of my days of ranting on Usenet: they may hate me and  
mail wild flames to me, but at least they are noticing me.  I can see  
myself doing it, and I don't like myself for it, but there it is...

Meanwhile, all Phorm/BT have to do is sit back, say nothing that will  
look unreasonable later, and hope that Intel release a processor with  
a minor arithmetic flaw or Apple release a version of iTunes with some  
dubious DRM extension or Microsoft say something unwise to the OOXML  
standards process.  The corollary of the process I'm describing is  
that people lose interest if they're not getting a rise out of The  
Man, and move on to the next flash-mob issue.

Legal processes don't move at Web 2.0 Speed.  Assuming you can make  
accusations on Monday, and if the people haven't been clapped in irons  
by Tuesday you need to make some more accusations, will rapidly  
escalate into you looking unreasonable.  All your opponent needs to do  
is nothing, and wait for you to make a mistake.  I'm sorry, but I  
think we're rapidly heading into that territory.

If we want to fight to a glorious defeat, in which people show their  
bravery and commitment and personal self-sacrifice, and then gather in  
pubs every year for the next fifteen to tell war stories, recount  
tales of derring-do and remember the good old days, then fine: wild  
accusations are the way to go.  It `worked' for the McLibel duo:  
everyone admires them, but McDonalds are in precisely the same  
position they were before [*].  It `worked' for CND: everyone knows  
about the Aldermaston marches, but forty-five years later the white  
train is still rolling.

But if we want a victory in which a pragmatic campaign is ground out,  
resulting in a regulatory framework which protects our interests and  
prevents this encroachment on our privacy, the route is not the one  
that's being embarked on.  It's a route of dealing rationally with  
regulators, industry bodies, consumer groups, journalists and so on.   
At the moment, we're heading for a glorious, meet in pubs and  
reminisce, defeat.

Sorry for being so negative.

ian

[*] Yes, they're not quite the market presence they were twenty years  
ago.  I ascribe that to changing fashions, not campaigns: Pizzaland  
and Spud'u'Like have gone, too.