
The history behind the chocolate hoax (2015) - nkurz
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/the_history_behind_the_chocolate_hoax.php
======
masona
In 2014 my friends and I made up something similar, and it went viral. Only
the NYT and the Guardian called to fact-check, and when they couldn’t verify
the story, didn’t run anything.

Everyone else ran it without even contacting us, even though our info was on
the page. When your business model is based on impressions, fact-checking is
an unnecessary expense. Ad revenue is what matters.

The funny thing is, the content farms masquerading as blogs don’t have as much
power anymore because they have to pay just to have their stories seen. So it
doesn’t seem to work as much anymore (based on a few more experiments we did).

~~~
heinrichf
Would you mind sharing what it was ?

~~~
masona
The project was a special kind of restaurant. Here’s a funny story about it:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/7t5bdm/tifu_by_getti...](https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/7t5bdm/tifu_by_getting_all_of_gq_stoned/?st=JF78BQNA&sh=40792e2a)

------
dmix
This is the original essay the author of the 'study' wrote for i09:
[https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-
choc...](https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-
helps-weight-1707251800)

Might be a better source as it contains picture examples of some of the
publications.

Notably the article also included additional legitimate research from Roy
Morgan that chocolate doesn't increase BMI. The additional (phoney) research
that it also reduces weight came from a fake but real seeming "Institute of
Diet and Health", which had a real looking website and utilized the legitimate
PhD of Harvard Educated Bohannon to sell it.

I'd imagine real companies using this ploy to sell fake research would:

a) not risk fraud charges by setting up a fake institute

b) have to find a real PhD willing to risk their reputation and future
credibility on tying their name to a fake study.

What would have been more interesting was if they merely took a real,
relatively benign, study on nutrition/health and spun it to something far more
than it is, then sold it to some papers. Even using the existing authors (as
some companies like Exxon have paid scientists to - not lie - but pump up
legitimate studies in their own benefit.

The authors went a step farther by including a completely fake institute which
somewhat bothers me.

------
HenryBemis
In a chocolate-related note, a tip from a friend who is a candy maker: if you
enjoy 'delicassy-X' and some time down the line, someone comes up with
'chocolate-coated-delicassy-X', stay away.

(Apparently) Chocolate has such a strong taste/odour that it covers many
smells/flavors, and you may end up eating outdated or reduced quality (e.g.)
baklava.

As for the hoax.. Peter Steiner drew it in 1993:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet%2C_nobody_know...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet%2C_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog)

------
jwilk
See also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16673175](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16673175)

------
ameliaquining
Counterpoint: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/30/that-chocolate-
study/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/30/that-chocolate-study/)

------
fjsolwmv
How can a Harvard scientist keep his job after intentionally defrauding the
public and harming millions of people?

~~~
Lazare
A good question, but unrelated to the current story where no such thing
happened.

