Net profits: Chip Berlet tracks computer networks of the religious right

Afterimage, Feb-March, 1995 by Grant Kester

I've had discussions with people who study electronic media and computers about the changes in the basis of information flow between Washington and people out in the country. Some talk about the potential for a referendum by keyboard. But my response is that populism comes in a variety of forms and it's not always good. A lynch mob is a form of populism. Democracy is based on informed consent; it could get badly burned by political flame wars. If you consider James Madison's definition of democracy by "informed consent," "informed" means an opinion developed over time through debate based on accurate information. But now, if you're gullible you can get swayed pretty fast by the kind of rhetoric that you see on the Internet. There is a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and just outright crap on the Internet. Some of it is circulated by far right groups that are pretending to he something else, and some of it is circulated by far right groups that are happy to acknowledge that they think all gays should he exterminated. Much of the political debate on the Internet takes place on the level of myth. That's not good for democracy. The Internet will need to grow up and develop the kind of social norms that characterize other democratic communications systems. Our social institutions are going to have to understand that if you want to play politics today, you've got to he on-line. And people need to realize that no matter how outlandish a claim posted on-line may be, it needs to be confronted and answered.

GK: When you talk about the Internet "growing up" are you suggesting some internal regulation of dialogue and information?

CB: Technically there is a way for local system operators to "twit" people off a given conference, so that their names are placed on a list of proscribed users and they are unable to post messages. But the kind of internal regulation that has already taken place with the Holocaust deniers is a good example of the type of norm I prefer. The Holocaust deniers managed to offend so many people in the Usenet conference section of the Internet that essentially they were confined to proselytizing from one storefront in the infinite "information" mall. Anybody who wants to stroll down the length of the mall and enter that storefront can read the most vile anti-Jewish crap available, along with refutations of it. The Holocaust denial material now is mostly confined to the Usenet conference . But when the Holocaust deniers start seeking Internet forums farther afield there is a lot of complaining from other users and they are forced back to .

GK: This raises very interesting questions regarding the way in which the Internet is seen to function as a kind of miniature public sphere or encapsulated democracy. Do you think that the state will eventually step in in the form of some kind of FCC devoted to computer communications, or do you think that the self-regulatory processes of the Internet will mature to the point to which they become recognized and accepted. We're already encountering debates about child pornography and stories with extreme violence and sadism on the Internet in the "Jake Baker" case, in which a University of Michigan student allegedly posted a violent and pornographic description of the torture of another student, using her full name.