The owner/manager of an Internet discussion list has a formidable
job. If he is the founder of the list, his task is even more formidable.
Most list founders were motivated to build them in the first place by a
strong feeling for a particular viewpoint or policy prescription, one
designed to solve some problem they regard as very serious. In other words,
they tend to have a heavy investment--intellectual and emotional--in one
"side" or the other of an important policy issue. It would be unreasonable,
then, to expect them to be "objective" on the central topic of their own
discussion lists.
And of course they are not. Those contributors to their lists who
cheer their own "side" tend to be seen as informed, wise, moderate, civil,
courteous, and otherwise possessed of all the civilized virtues, no matter
how crude and aggressive they are in fact. Conversely, critics of the list
owner's personal position on its key issue can only be seen as deficient in
either education, intelligence, compassion, integrity, good morals,
civilized manners, or the like, else how to explain their contrary position
on that great central question?
The list owner/manager is also likely to be quite immersed in his
thesis or idelological position and thus proficient in its rhetoric. How
can he stand to remain silent when erroneous views--by his lights--are being
bandied about on the list? When the "wrong" side seems to be getting the
better of the argument? He will inevitably feel this overpowering urge to
put his thumb on the scales, to help his ideological allies and smite his
enemies. In other words, few owners or managers of discussion lists have
the self-discipline to do what the job requires, namely, to avoid using
their power--and it is a formidable power--to "rig" the debate on their lists.
Consider the simple matter of maintaining order and civility on a
discussion list. Two simple discussion rules govern most lists: (1) No
name-calling, and (2) stay within the bounds of the list's subject matter.
Simple enough, right? Not quite. Ever seen a referee at a sporting event
who was determined to give the victory to his favorite contestant? Ever
seen a courtroom trial where the judge-- instead of being fair and
even-handed as between the litigants--methodically hands down rulings (and
makes comments) that unfairly let the jury know how he wants them to decide
the case? Grounds for a mistrial. The judge has cheated. He's used his
power--as the so-called "neutral" referee--to prejudice the jury. So it is
with the owner/managers of discussion lists.
There's a familiar "death scenario" for such lists. A dedicated
owner/manager attracts a modest following by articulating his particular
policy solution to some serious problem. All goes well until a critic
appears, then another. A couple of his more zealous--and less
inhibited--fans on the list attack the critics, challenging their
intelligence, integrity, and so on. The latter, understandably concerned
with this new turn of events, vigorously defend themselves. The
less-than-objective manager of the list naturally weighs in on the side of
his ideological supporters, condemning the critics for "name-calling" but
neglecting to mention either the provocation they were responding to or the
fact that the critics were the milder, more restrained of the two sides in
the exchange.
He issues his verdict--in his powerful role as owner/ manager of the
list--that the critics are the guilty parties, his friends blameless. The
latter get the message that the "boss" of the list sides with them and step
up the verbal violence of their attack. Intellectual anarchy--senseless
name-calling--typically follows. The list is now dead. The critics depart
and with them its intellectual energy. The members now see the list for
what it is--a podium for one person, its owner/manager--and start to drift
away.
Land reform, as I've mentioned before, is a topic of global
importance. Of the earth's 5.8 billion population, some 2/3rds--over 3
billion people--live in the 150 or so 3rd world countries where the most
brutal and unnecessary hunger is the routine way of life (and death). Soon,
again as I've suggested, there will be a Net- linked computer in every
village, no matter how remote. A sensible land policy could bring this
global famine to an abrupt halt and my hope is that this group will get on
with the job of spelling it out on the Net.
Charles Mueller, Editor
ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
----------------------------------
-----
