He's nobody, a classic coward. Except he's somebody, suddenly. Betts has noticed him. Patrick Dangerfield has noticed him. The Crows have, and the players association, too. That's quite a gallery, and it's growing. This article could be added to the catalogue. Even the AFL is talking about him, saying it will strip him of his membership, if they find out he has one. If they find him. That spool of drool is growing longer. Others say he should be named and shamed. Imagine that! Little old him, name up in lights. Name, shame, it's all the same, as Oscar Wilde said. The froth is flying now. It's too late this time: he wins. But next time, ignore him. It's not turning the other cheek, it's turning away altogether. It's not wishing him away, it's denying him his only existence. It's not giving in, it's fighting back with the one weapon he fears most: irrelevance. He becomes the tree falling unseen in the forest, making no sound.

This is the distinction that needs to be made. Other instances of racist abuse of footballers - the banana thrown at Betts once, the miserable booing of Adam Goodes - were highly public and highly visible. They were face to face. They made a noise, an ugly one. This was bigotry that could not be ignored. It demanded, and got, a response. But social media is another sphere. All that happens there exists only because of, and in proportion to, the reaction to it. Without a reaction, it falls into a vacuum. In a vacuum, no-one can hear you slobber. Adam Goodes Credit:Brendan Esposito It might be argued that he of the vitriol and spittle needs to be confronted because he is influencing others. But one of the features of social media is that it is like speaking exclusively to like. Most will have had a visceral reaction to the offending post, but few will have had their minds changed by it. It might be argued that to ignore him would be to embolden him. Maybe, for a while. But challenging him also emboldens him and his type; this we already know. Because he is anonymous, the threat of punishment is no deterrent, and notoriety a likely attraction. Indifference, though, is anathema.

It's easy for me to say, of course. I'm not in Betts' boots, nor his family's. Why should he have to put up with abuse at all, he reasonably asks. When will it stop? At the ground, in the street, the answer is now. It's the law. Most are on the case, thankfully. But social media is an anarchy. Dealing with its misfits, rabble-rousers and lathered-up provocateurs requires a new way of thinking. It might be now that evil triumphs when good men try too hard to do something. Betts' abuser last weekend may be as I imagine him, or nothing like it. He could be sitting next to you now, or me. That's the point. We don't know, because he's unknown. He has no power over us, or Eddie Betts, except the power we grant him. We created him, and we can destroy him, without lifting a finger, explicitly by not lifting a finger.