Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a manipulativepropaganda tactic used in technology sales,marketing,public relations, politics,polling, andcults. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious orfalse information and is a manifestation of theappeal to fear.
In public policy, a similar concept has been referred to asmanufactured uncertainty, which involves casting doubt on academic findings, exaggerating their claimed imperfections.[1] Amanufactured controversy is a contrived disagreement, typically motivated byprofit or ideology, designed to create public confusion concerning an issue about which there is no substantial academic dispute.[2][3]
The similar formulation "doubts, fears, and uncertainties" first appeared in 1693.[4][5] The phrase "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" first appeared in the 1920s.[6][7] It is also sometimes rendered as "fear, uncertainty, and disinformation".[8]
By 1975, "FUD" was appearing in contexts of marketing, sales,[9] and inpublic relations:[10]
One of the messages dealt with is FUD—the fear, uncertainty and doubt on the part of customer and sales person alike that stifles the approach and greeting.[9]
FUD was first used with its common current technology-related meaning byGene Amdahl in 1975, after he leftIBM to foundAmdahl Corp.[11]
FUD is the fear, uncertainty and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products.[11]
This usage of FUD to describe disinformation in thecomputer hardware industry is said to have led to subsequent popularization of the term.[12]
AsEric S. Raymond wrote:[11]
The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising thatGood Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, butDark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991, the term has become generalized to refer to any kind ofdisinformation used as a competitive weapon.[11]
By spreading questionable information about the drawbacks of less well-known products, an established company can discourage decision-makers from choosing those products over its own, regardless of the relativetechnical merits. This is a recognized phenomenon, epitomized by the traditional axiom of purchasing agents that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM equipment". The aim is to haveIT departments buy software they know to be technically inferior because upper management is more likely torecognize the brand.[citation needed]
Manufacturing controversy has been a tactic used by ideological and corporate groups to "neutralize the influence of academic scientists" in public policy debates.Cherry picking of favorable data and sympathetic experts, aggrandizement of uncertainties withintheoretical models, andfalse balance in media reporting contribute to the generation of FUD. Alan D. Attie describes its process as "to amplify uncertainties, cherry-pick experts, attack individual scientists, marginalize the traditional role of distinguished scientific bodies and get the media to report "both sides" of a manufactured controversy."[13]
Those manufacturing uncertainty may label academic research as "junk science" and use a variety of tactics designed to stall and increase the expense of the distribution of sound scientific information.[1][14] Delay tactics are also used to slow the implementation of regulations and public warnings in response to previously undiscovered health risks (e.g., the increased risk ofReye's syndrome in children who takeaspirin).[14] Chief among these stalling tactics is generating scientific uncertainty, "no matter how powerful or conclusive the evidence",[14] to prevent regulation.
Another tactic used to manufacture controversy is to cast thescientific community as intolerant of dissent and conspiratorially aligned with industries or sociopolitical movements that quash challenges toconventional wisdom.[15] This form of manufactured controversy has been used byenvironmentalist advocacy groups, religious challengers of thetheory of evolution, and opponents ofglobal warming legislation.[16]
Ideas that have been labeled as manufactured uncertainty include:
Thetobacco industry playbook, tobacco strategy or simply disinformation playbook[22][23] describes a public relations strategy used by thetobacco industry in the 1950s to protect revenues in the face of mounting evidence of links between tobacco smoke and serious illnesses, primarily cancer.[24]Such tactics were used even earlier, beginning in the 1920s, by the oil industry to support the use oftetraethyllead ingasoline.[25] They continue to be used by other industries, notably thefossil fuel industry, even using the same PR firms and researchers.[26]
Much of the playbook is known from industry documents made public by whistleblowers or as a result of theTobacco Master Settlement Agreement. These documents are now curated by the UCSFTruth Tobacco Industry Documents project and are a primary source for much commentary on both the tobacco playbook and its similarities to the tactics used by other industries such as thefossil fuel industry.[26][27]
A 1969R. J. Reynolds internal memorandum noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public."[28][29]
InMerchants of Doubt,Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway documented the way that tobacco companies had campaigned over several decades to cast doubt on thescientific evidence of harm caused by their products, and noted the same techniques being used by other industries whose harmful products were targets of regulatory and environmental efforts.[30] This is often linked toclimate change denialism promoted by the fossil fuel industry:[31][32] the same tactics were employed by fossil fuel groups such as theAmerican Petroleum Institute to cast doubt on climate science from the 1990s[33] and some of the same PR firms and individuals engaged to claim that tobacco smoking was safe, were later recruited to attack climate science.[34]In the United States, the generation of manufactured uncertainty about scientific data has affected political and legal proceedings in many different areas. TheData Quality Act and theSupreme Court'sDaubert standard have been cited as tools used by those manufacturing controversy to obfuscatescientific consensus.[1][13]
Concerns have been raised regarding theconflicts of interest inherent in many types ofindustry regulation. For example, many industries, such as thepharmaceutical industry, are a major source of funding for the research necessary to achieve government regulatory approval for their product.[35] In developing regulations, agencies such as theFood and Drug Administration and theEnvironmental Protection Agency rely heavily on unpublished studies from industry sources that have not beenpeer reviewed.[21] This can allow a given industry control over the extent of available research, and the pace at which it is reviewable, when challenging scientific research that may threaten their business interests.[citation needed]
In the 1990s, the term became most often associated withMicrosoft. Roger Irwin said:[36]
Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the '80s used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ing IBM themselves during theOS/2 vs Win3.1 years.
In 1996,Caldera, Inc. accused Microsoft of severalanti-competitive practices, including issuingvaporware announcements, creating FUD, and excluding competitors from participating inbeta-test programs to destroy competition in theDOS market.[37][38]
In 1991, Microsoft released a beta version ofWindows 3.1 whoseAARD code would display a vaguely unnerving error message when the user ran it on theDR DOS 6.0 operating system instead of Microsoft-written OSs:[37][39][40][41][42]
Non-Fatal error detected: error #2726
Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support
Press ENTER to exit or C to continue[40][41][42]
If the user chose to pressC, Windows would continue to run on DR DOS without problems. Speculation that this code was meant to create doubts about DR DOS'scompatibility and thereby destroy the product'sreputation[40][41] was confirmed years later by internal Microsoft memos published as part of theUnited States v. Microsoftantitrust case.[43] At one point, Microsoft CEOBill Gates sent a memo to a number of employees, reading
You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run withMS-DOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there [a] feature they have that might get in our way?[37][44]
Microsoft Senior Vice PresidentBrad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating
What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.[37][44]
In 2000, Microsoft settled thelawsuit out-of-court for an undisclosed sum, which in 2009 was revealed to be $280 million.[45][46][47][48]
At around the same time, the leaked internal Microsoft "Halloween documents" stated "OSS [Open Source Software] is long-term credible… [therefore] FUD tactics cannot be used to combat it."[49]Open source software, and theLinux community in particular, are widely perceived as frequent targets of Microsoft's FUD:
TheSCO Group's 2003lawsuit against IBM, funded byMicrosoft, claiming $5 billion inintellectual property infringements by thefree software community, is an example of FUD, according to IBM, which argued in its counterclaim that SCO was spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".[57]
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells wrote (and JudgeDale Albert Kimball concurred) in her order limiting SCO's claims: "The court finds SCO's arguments unpersuasive. SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM, 'sorry, we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know...' SCO was required to disclose in detail what it feels IBM misappropriated... the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is... not placing all the details on the table. Certainly if an individual were stopped and accused ofshoplifting after walking out ofNeiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that 'you know what you stole, I'm not telling.' Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus' entire inventory and say 'it's in there somewhere, you figure it out.'"[58]
Regarding the matter,Darl Charles McBride, President and CEO of SCO, made the following statements:
SCO stock skyrocketed from under US$3 a share to over US$20 in a matter of weeks in 2003. It later dropped to around[60] US$1.2—then crashed to under 50 cents on 13 August 2007, in the aftermath of a ruling thatNovell owns the UNIXcopyrights.[61]
Apple's claim thatiPhone jailbreaking could potentially allow hackers to crashcell phone towers was described byFred von Lohmann, a representative of theElectronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as a "kind of theoretical threat...more FUD than truth".[62]
FUD is widely recognized as a tactic to promote the sale or implementation of security products and measures. It is possible to find pages describing purely artificial problems. Such pages frequently contain links to the demonstrating source code that does not point to any valid location and sometimes even links that "will execute malicious code on your machine regardless of current security software", leading to pages without any executable code.[citation needed]
The drawback to the FUD tactic in this context is that, when the stated or implied threats fail to materialize over time, the customer or decision-maker frequently reacts by withdrawing budgeting or support from future security initiatives.[63]
FUD has also been utilized intechnical support scams, which may use fake error messages to scare unwitting computer users, especially the elderly or computer-illiterate, into paying for a supposed fix for a non-existent problem,[64] to avoid being framed for criminal charges such as unpaid taxes, or in extreme cases, false accusations of illegal acts such aschild pornography.[65]
The FUD tactic was used byCaltex Australia in 2003. According to an internal memo, which was subsequently leaked, they wished to use FUD to destabilize franchisee confidence, and thus get a better deal for Caltex. This memo was used as an example of unconscionable behaviour in aSenate inquiry. Senior management claimed that it was contrary to and did not reflect company principles.[66][67][68]
In 2008,Clorox was the subject of both consumer and industry criticism for advertising itsGreen Works line of allegedlyenvironmentally friendly cleaning products using theslogan, "Finally, Green Works."[69] The slogan implied both that "green" products manufactured by other companies which had been available to consumers prior to the introduction of Clorox's GreenWorks line had all been ineffective, and also that the new GreenWorks line was at least as effective as Clorox's existing product lines. The intention of this slogan and the associated advertising campaign has been interpreted as appealing to consumers' fears that products from companies with lessbrand recognition are less trustworthy or effective. Critics also pointed out that, despite its representation of GreenWorks products as "green" in the sense of being less harmful to the environment and/or consumers using them, the products contain a number of ingredients advocates of natural products have long campaigned against the use of in household products due totoxicity to humans or their environment.[70] All three implicit claims have been disputed, and some of their elements disproven, by environmental groups, consumer-protection groups, and the industry self-regulatoryBetter Business Bureau.[71]
[…] This will give unspeakable comfort peace and satisfaction to his Mind, and set him not only out of danger and free him from an ill state, but out of all doubts fears and uncertainties in his thoughts about it; […]
[…] This will give unspeakable comfort peace and satisfaction to his Mind, and set him not only out of danger, and free him from an ill state, but out of all doubts fears and uncertainties in his thoughts about it; […]
[…] Suspicion has no place in our interchanges; it is a shield for ignorance, a sign of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. […][1][2]Archived 2024-09-06 at theWayback Machine (NB. In there, Yarbrough is citing a 1917-09-21 letter by J. J. Farrell, Augusta, Georgia, USA, which contains the quotation.)
[…] Again he was caught in a tempest of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. […](See also:Henryk Sienkiewicz)
[…] One of the messages dealt with is FUD—the fear, uncertainty and doubt on the part of customer and sales person alike that stifles the approach and greeting. […]
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)[…]Microsoft will pay toCaldera, by wire transfer in accordance with written instructions provided by Caldera, the amount of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000), as full settlement of all claims or potential claims covered by this agreement […](NB. This document of theCaldera v. Microsoft case was an exhibit in the laterComes v. Microsoft case.)
[…]Microsoft paid $280 million toCaldera to settle the case […]
Microsoft Corp. agreed to pay an estimated $275 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit byCaldera Inc., heading off a trial that was likely to air nasty allegations from a decade ago. […] Microsoft and Caldera, a small Salt Lake City software company that brought the suit in 1996, didn't disclose terms of the settlement. Microsoft, though, said it would take a charge of three cents a share for the agreement in the fiscal third quarter ending March 31 […] the company has roughly 5.5 billion shares outstanding […]
This article is based in part on theJargon File, which is in the public domain.
