> humans are animals and we need to keep that in mind for when we expect large groups of them to act like anything but a herd

Then it is equally foolish to assume that humans are capable of shepherding each other. Either every human is an animal, or none of them are. Which animals get to decide how the rest of the animals use something in the world? It's not as easy as it seems. Finding "clever" ways of partitioning people is a recipe for disaster.

Well, humans are the only animal which is able to actually act against its animal nature. But this requires work, education, self-awareness. Acceptance and understanding of one’s cognitive biases. Not everyone on the internet is acting equally destructive. But possibly at this point in collective human evolution, people (on average) maybe are not ready for the internet.

> Well, humans are the only animal which is able to actually act against its animal nature.

Think about this some more, it doesn't actually make sense. There are aspects of humans we can differentiate between other species, but there exists no subset of behaviors amongst humans that are non-animalistic. It's a contradiction.

I don’t see what you mean. If certain patterns of behavior characterize 99,9 % of the animal species, and if humans are the only species which is able to deliberately act in a way which 99,9 % of the animal species can’t/won’t, then describing this as “non-animalistic” behavior is very practical to use for the topic at hand, and not a contradiction, in my opinion. Because this is what sets humans apart from all animal species.

>certain patterns of behavior characterize 99,9 % of the animal species

There is no such thing. Unless you mean very basic things like eating and sleeping, and that's not even certain.

Also, every species has its own idiosyncracies that no one else does. The idea that humans somehow 'arose' through evolution atop the masses of the mindless animal kingdom is a bit quaint.