On-line Lies and the Split Personality or
Unreality Strikes Again
by John C. Dvorak

It was the April issue of PC/Computing where I wrote an April Fools column that would get the attention of the Washington Post, a few US Senators and the Internet Community. I wrote a fiction about a dubious bill (the bill number was 040194 — April Fools day) that would prohibit “drunk driving” on the Information Highway. To make it even more ridiculous I told about how Congress was going to enact legislation to prevent computer sex chatting too.

This exercise in April Fools buffoonery proved two things: 1) that this ludicrous notion was actually believable. This is a pathetic commentary on our attitude toward our government. To think that they are such idiots. But is also proved 2) that we, the users, are gullible.

The on-line community, in particular, accepts far too much on-line gossip and blatant lies as truth. A cock and bull story on any bulletin board, Compuserve, AOL or the Internet are all to often redistributed as fact. Most of what comes over the wire are lies propaganda or just urban folklore. The fact that the source originates in a high tech world seems to make information passed over the modem to be more credible than it often is. And our reactions to it are too often wrong.

I recently wrote an analysis of the Microsoft Munchkin phenomenon for Marketing Computers Magazine. I’ve always believed that Microsoft has a corporate policy to send “muchkins” into the online world to promote the company and rag on the competition. There was a recent situation on Will Zachmann’s CIS forum where the disruption caused Zachmann to go ballistic. I noted that on-line personalities take on a life of their own and people seem to slip into a gullible mode when dealing with the online world.

The most unbelievable situation occurred about 10 years ago when a woman calling herself Dee Dub was arrested for a variety of things mostly drug related in the San Francisco Bay Area. Her real name was Diane Worthington. She was deeply involved in a forum on the now defunct SOURCE called Parti or Participate. She somehow got a message posted telling of her unfortunate plight with the evil police. Within hours of her arrest the online community involved in Parti went into a massive debate about why this poor innocent woman — whom none of them had ever seen and nobody really knew — could have this terrible injustice done to her. Within a few short days this large group was up in arms about the injustice of it all and what could they do to help their online friend. To read these messages was a more frightening experience than my school age encounter with George Orwell’s Animal Farm or any of the horrible Utopia gone bad tomes that were a fiction mainstay decades back. It was just incredible to see people going off the deep end acting as if this fictional Dee Dub was their sibling. One fellow come on who apparently had some knowledge of the case and tried to explain some of the facts and he was vilified by the crowd. Everyone was in a dream world. They all were convinced that they “knew” this woman — Dee Dub. And, in some odd way they did know her — but it wasn’t Diane Worthington. It was a persona created, made real for the unreal world of on-line.

Anyway as more and more truths about the real situation were revealed the society that was built up in support of Dee Dub decayed in a cynical way with some people acting depressed and vowing never to get involved in any online activities. It was really strange, let me tell you. The group eventually dissolved, many embittered by the whole experience.

This unreality of online communication encourages this kind of nonsense. Anyone who goes online a lot has created offbeat personnas. AT some point you have to wonder how healthy this is? While a little role-playing is always educational are we not voluntarily making ourselves schizoid? We think it’s weird that Roseanne Barr (Arnold) claims to have a variety of personalities that she had to create to protect herself from the onslaught of demands and sexual aggression. But then we go off and do it to ourselves. The split personality seems to be a part of society nowadays. It used to be an oddity, but now is becoming mainstream. Are online addicts creating a potential personality problem by making themselves into different people? Is the person on CB or on a chat BBS who claims to be into bestiality or some weird oddball sex slowly changing their own nature by this activity? It’s possible.

This is worsened by the ludicrous level of tolerance expressed by other participants. If someone came up to you at the store and as part of the conversation they said that they wanted to have sex with dogs, you’d give them some negative feedback. Wouldn’t you? AT least you’d take a step back or show concern for the animals. But when someone online says this, the response is neutral if not actually encouraging. “Oh, dogs? That’s interesting. When did you start getting these desires? Have you always felt this way?” It’s like you’re having a sane conversation with a lunatic. This isn’t normal or behavior that should be tolerated and encouraged.

The feedback mechanism online is deplorable. If users aren’t encouraging odd sex behavior, then they go off the deep end with flames. Flaming should not be tolerated. I know the following concept is going to make a lot of people angry but I think someone needs to be sued big time for slander or libel because of a posting. That would put a stop to it. Even if the posting is anonymous, a court order could track down most subscribers to almost any system. Yes, it would be possible to do a truly anonymous posting once in a while and not get caught, but most flames are from known people who can be tracked down by the courts. I’d advise people to be careful about flaming because it’s ripe for a lawsuit and if you haven’t noticed, our legal system encourages this kind of legal action. But that’s a side issue. The point I want to make is that the online community largely encourages and tolerates the worst kind of flaming. Sure a soul or two will claim that the flame isn’t good and that they personally “like” the person being flamed. That’s about as far as it goes. Most people think the flaming is amusing. A sick form of entertainment. Hahaha. Gee, I always wanted to say THAT to someone. Repressed hostility — another on line theme along with the need to be schizoidal.

So let’s see some of the attributes rising like cream to the surface of online use. Gullibility, schizoid behavior, personality change, repressed hostility. Charming, huh? I didn’t even mention the addictive aspect to online chatting.

Now it’s not as though I have a suggestion as to how online computing would be more mentally healthy than I’m indicating that it is. The trend to go online is getting up a head of steam with new services, Internet mania and the GUI making its way into the online world. More and more people are wasting more and more time online for whatever reason. There are no signs that this growth will even slow down let alone end.

One interesting aspect of all this that might be a positive sign is the online etiquette that has evolved over the years. While flames rule the roost in newsgroups and on conference message systems, they are not accepted during real-time conferenceing or chatting. There is a certain politeness which I feel is the same unfortunate mechanism that doesn’t allow us to criticize the person who wants to have sex with a dog. So what you have is an interesting extreme. On the one hand flames and intense criticism runs rampant. On the other hand a ridiculous level of politeness and tolerance is the norm. There is no middle ground. It’s reflective of a split personality too, isn’t it? This split personality seems to be a theme here if you haven’t noticed.

I have no suggestions for curing it. Neither do I. And I don’t either. Ahhhhh!

All I know is that it might be a problem. And I agree. Me too.

—end