Now, we've discussed some of the errors in conception that caused the net to break down with such appalling consequences. But there is one more and it's the worst of the bunch, even if it it is the one that was made from the best intentions of all. The system operators, those who ran the computers that provided internet access, did not wish to have their systems used irresponsibly. So, the custom was established of encouraging users from other systems to write to the Sysops ("SYStem OPeratorS") of those who misused their accounts to complain. The problem? This was an incredibly easy system to abuse.

As the reader may have already gathered, Usenet (on its own sick terms) is an incredibly easy place to meet people in. When you visit it, you're entering a place where people are doing nothing but talking to each other and often, these are very lonely, bored, people. Nobody is more than a five minute e-mail transit time from anybody else and given the ability to cc on e-mail (send one letter to many people), huge mobs can easily be assembled. Mobs that, in total, include but a tiny fraction of the total population on Usenet, and yet can be overwhelming for the lone individual to deal with - including the lone administrator.

It is a problem whose mention bears repetition. If, in real life, .1 % of the people you meet wish to bother you, and the other 99.9 % like you, you're doing pretty well. That 0.1 % is a lunatic fringe that you can well afford to laugh off. But Usenet, as we keep saying, empowers the lunatic fringe which can so quickly gather there, and is composed of people who are all too happy to spend the time to do so. Right now, there are over 100,000,000 people visiting Usenet, the vast majority of them lurkers. 0.1% of that is 100,000 people. Imagine getting crank called by the entire population of Peoria. You'd never get a moment's sleep.

And there's the problem. The Sysop can be subjected to massive harassment. His phone may end up ringing off the hook as 100,000 people call him, screaming abuse at him and making it impossible for business calls to get through, until he caves in to their pressure and takes away the Internet access of the person they want silenced. And the harassers can do this endlessly. Why? Because as the system is configured, the conflict between the would-be censorer and the censored is entirely one-sided. Those writing in can not be sanctioned by those they are writing to, and so there are no penalties for making a frivolous complaint. If the sysop caves in, the censor achives victory. If the sysop stands his ground, for now, there is no loss.

It's a war in which only one side is given live ammunition, and it's allowed to shoot indefinitely. It takes no prophet to forsee its outcome. Yes, the one ganged up on can write to the sysops of those sending the mail. All 100,000 of them if, somehow, one miraculously finds the time. But there is a notion (almost a dogma) that sending a single e-mail (even when it is known to be sent as part of an orchestrated campaign) is never grounds for complaint, even when the letter is an abusive one, demanding compliance with an reprehensible demand that another be censored. Even when it is made in a clear cut attempt to violate the very rights of free expression that its sender could only hypocritically protest were being violated, were he sanctioned for the sending of HIS letter.

In a forum where people have, as a matter of habit, been excluded for unpopularity and nothing else, should one be surprised? Habitual actions become instinctual, on a certain level, and if the most common habit of those around one is to react to coherent counterargument with ranting and a refusal to listen (or to allow others the opportunity to listen either) can it be a terrible shock if those instincts are never examined very deeply?

And thus was the Cabal born. That is, the tiny ruling minority of non-entities who've made Usenet their private fiefdom, largely because they've had less to do with their time, and been more willing to waste it than their opposition. Let us think hard about this one sad truth. The more of substance one contributes, the more there is to disagree with in it and the more attention it will tend to get, much of it resentful. The more likely, then, one is to become the victim of an online feeding frenzy, the subject of mass complaints either by those who have nobody else to complain about at the moment or by those who resent his getting attention, instead of them.

If one contributes nothing, but merely "lurks", reading without submitting anything, one is entirely invisible and invulnerable. What can one hope for, in a forum where the rules are made by those who don't contribute to it?

Click here to continue.