How does this apply to our case?

Fred, a man with an abundance of time (and a shortage of integrity) went on the attack, often preemptively, complaining of the "prejudice against prostitutes and their customers". In a sane forum, people would simply say "Fred, that isn't prejudice, you simply aren't being given what you want. Get over it." But instead, people were in such a mad rush to prove that this word that Fred manipulatively pulled out of the air (prejudiced) didn't apply to them that they immediately attempted to undermine the argument that lead up to this unwarranted charge of unfairness, in the process letting themselves be pushed into supporting the position of Fred's choice.

Those who weren't so easily browbeaten found that Fred would start spreading rumors at their expense in a far more tireless fashion, than they would have time to resist this effort in. Also, let us remember, the rule online is "attitude following the path of least resistance". Meaning that those who file complaints, purely in order to harass - thus showing an eagerness to go on the attack - are the ones who will tend to see support, not their victims. The resulting flamewars, as one person after another joins in, in keeping with (and in order to maintain) his place in this floating lynch mob, then take on the characteristics of a shark feeding frenzy, the rabid nature of each response stirring the next to be even worse. This will continue until the accused immediately displays his 'sensitivity', showing that it is all one big, yet easy to resolve, misunderstanding, and that he's working to make the group's life online as unchallenging as it wishes it to be. Dissent with the insane does not seem to endure there, or even be viewed at all tolerantly.

Once Fred had mobilised the ever unstable mob to support his "cause", it grew of its own accord as it harassed its opposition into silence, or, failing that, harassed the Internet service providers of the opposition to silence them for it. If that failed, they could always forge cancels on their posts, hacking their way in and vandalise their web sites, and so on.

Not surprisingly, people of the sort that have been mentioned here tend to cluster online, where they don't have to face their victims in person. What is frightening is that the net has given them a place where it is easy for them to gather into large groups, wolf packs if you will, large enough to be able to shut down dissent. They are a relatively small group compared to the masses logging in, this Chicken Cabal of ours, but they can be numerous enough to be a real problem for the lone user. It is especially easy for them to do so, because of a "rule" of Netiquette which they established on the usual basis of "because we said so", holding that one can't repost harassing "private e-mail" sent to one and another that one is "required" to take e-mail. This allows them to harass lone users and then lie and deny what they have been doing when the recipient tries to mobilise the community against these individually timid members of a fanatical vigilante mob by telling others about their behavior.

Truly, Usenet is a coward's paradise. It has, in this way, become an asylum, where reality is defined by the craziest people there.

What is more frightening is that, by gathering in mobs, while keeping others disunited and isolated and thus seizing control of what is supposed to be a free forum of discussion, these people have given ideas that would never stand scrutiny, a vast audience that hears some superficially convincing sounding arguments in their favor but is never allowed to hear the arguments against them. This serves to distort public opinion and the democratic process itself to the extent that an increasingly cowed public has even insisted on its preservation. Lunacy easily becomes popular reality.

Just this happened in the case of Cherry's campaign. What would have been laughed off, once, became dogma that one had best not challenge. Fred, the village idiot, was able to sway public opinion in favor of a nakedly (if not embarassingly) selfish and unworthy cause, merely by showing up and insulting a few people. Such is the instability of these online forums, where dogma on a subject is made, by whoever is the first to throw a tantrum and claim oppression.

The moral? Think for yourself. It's not just your right, it's your duty - one that we should never allow anyone to shirk in comfort. And don't take online consenses that seriously, because they aren't the product of reasoned (or even principled) discussion.

Return to the Fred Cherry Story.