Human Nature and the Internet: opinions...

(last update 22. Jun 1999)
Nearly every human invention is in at least some way subject of abuse by any humans. Of course the Internet is no exception from this general rule.

Another aspect is, that humans are all sorts of things but angels: to make it quite clear, for example one of the most important goals of education and religion is to cage the devil, which resides more or less in every human being.

Force of the legal institutions of countries is another measure, to prevent the majority from doing nasty things. Generally offenders are punished and in severe cases arrested, so it's achieved, that violations are limited to a low level.

lack of control in the Internet...

Now a major problem arises, if following conditions hold true: a mixture of humans with very different postures and opinions is "united" in a "union", where no central legal instance controls it effectively as an unit and no other top instance of whatever type exists. This is a description of the Internet.

...and bad human habits

Therefore no realistic thinking human will assume, that by chance or some sort of miracle the state of such a creation like the Internet will be any better, as you would expect by considering the above facts and tendencies. And indeed, what reigns in the Internet, is a special type of anarchy: you can experience virtually all nasty things, which humans can do with texts, graphics and audio measures anyway, alongside with attacks on another participants in an financially aided or purely malevolent manner.

Figuratively the Internet is a giant ocean with an untypical large number of white sharks in it. Everybody can become a victim of these, even if not directly involved in the Internet.

big security problems

Against pure technical attacks the more or less widespread systems like firewalls, passwords (at best with Kerberos quality) and taking account other security considerations, for example encryption of sensitive data, which are transmitted through the net, are used as a more or less effective protection.

The more subtile attacks require especially attention. They range from simple usage of offensive words to indirect offenses, often not or at least late recognized ones by the affected people. The last type affects primarily celebrities.

celebrities and the Internet

Only a few of these possess own homepages in the Internet. Of the prominent people I most highly respect, at the male side a good example is the meanwhile vanished former homepage of Pete Sampras, one of the best tennis players of all time and clearly the best of the currently active. But there is nothing special about this --- at least so far I know.

But the Internet is - especially on the homepage owner site - a male dominated thing. And as in everydays life, a number of men behaves really badly in this situation with respect to women. Especially for prominent women this happens often in styles, which are no way funny, but only nasty.

attacks by fake pictures...

One of the worst attacks is the creation, distribution and labeling as real pictures of fakes of these women in an extremely offensive manner; the more famous and attractive a woman is and the less she is willing, to show all of her, the more she is generally attacked by these subjects in this way.

This simple relation can be observed best at the Archive of the Fake Detective , so especially women like Sandra Bullock, Gillian Anderson, Jennifer Anniston or Courteney Cox are preferred victims of these attacks. Nothing to wonder about, that most female celebrities don't like the Internet very much...

... and different postures of these female celebrities

Sandra Bullock said once, that she can laugh about these attacks, as long the pictures show her in a good shape(!). But this composed posture is not quite common, for example about Gillian Anderson it is reported, that she was very upset and sad, when she recognized some "nude" fakes of "her".

the tabloid problem widens even more

In another respect, and this time regardless of the gender of the person, the Internet is "only" a way of additional distribution of the bullshit - sorry -, which is created by the majority of media worldwide. You have at every time to consider, that publications like the "National Enquirer" in the USA, "SUN" in Great Britain, "Paris Match" in France or "Bild" in Germany are no way interested to know or even tell the truth. They invent stories, lie and twist the truth with malevolent pervertion only for financial interests of course, and the only thing they are good in, is to defend at court their infamous "business". Seldom, so in the case of princess Caroline of Monaco, some celebrities fight with considerable success against this scum of the media.

Keep in mind: these prominent persons have to show some sort of "public privacy" (what a contradiction!), what means a certain sacrifce of privacy, which is tightly bound to being famous; a fact which was already stated at European courts, but the majority of unscrupulous media simply ignores any rights of prominent people. And the Internet is only a attractive vehicle for the offending people, to make their lies distribute faster and to show illegal material of any type with at least much less risk (if any risk at all) for them, than it is experienced through publishing in other media.

With this negative, but in my view absolutely realistic viewpoint, I close the "discussion" for now. If you like to deliver opinions or comments, see below.


back to top    back to main

comments and discussion to: