[tacticalmedialist]The Sad Decline of In

[tactical]

Infoshop News - The Sad Decline of Indymedia

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/12/08/2553147


                  The Sad Decline of Indymedia
                  by Chuck0
                  for Infoshop News
                  It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center 
opened
                  up its first website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in
                  December 1999. The first IMC website came out of years of
                  alternative and grassroots media activism. By a strange 
quirk
                  of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called the
                  "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader 
to be
                  a reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY,
                  participatory media production. The IMC network recently
                  observed its 3rd anniversary and the 100th IMC went online,
                  but the IMC project is facing some serious problems 
which, if
                  they aren't addressed by the supporters of the IMC network,
                  will eventually destroy the wonderful idea that is 
Indymedia.
                  There are some that would argue that the Indymedia network
                  needs a stronger organization to address its current and
                  persistent problems. This may be somewhat true, but 
those of
                  us who have pressed for reforms find ourselves at the 
mercy of
                  a network of people who are afraid to step forward and make
                  tough decisions. It might help if there were some more
                  organized processes, but I see the chief problem with
                  Indymedia these days to be a political one, not an
                  organizational or technical problem.
                  The IMC Network has a statement of principles and so do 
most
                  local IMCs. However, the political orientation of the 
IMC has
                  never been firmly established. Other IMC volunteers and 
myself
                  have strongly argued for a series of regional IMC 
meetings and
                  conventions to resolve these questions. The problems 
with the
                  IMC's vague politics is not so much what ideology it should
                  embrace, rather what ideologies and content the IMC Network
                  rejects and opposes. This vagueness on politics has 
allowed an
                  international network of right wingers and racists to abuse
                  and disrupt the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's
                  functionality and reputation in ways that may not be 
fixable
                  without stepping on lots of toes.
                  If you are a regular visitor to the IMC-Global website
                  (http://www.indymedia.org), you may have noticed some big
                  changes earlier this year. The "open" newswire was moved 
off
                  the front page for a variety of reasons. The most 
diplomatic
                  reason was that many felt that the features being 
created by
                  local IMCs should be featured on the Global website. 
This was
                  a solid idea and should have been implemented despite the
                  other reasons. The messier reason why the open newsire was
                  relocated was because the IMC Global volunteers were 
fighting
                  a losing campaign against right wing disruption of the
                  website. This disruption aimed to establish "free speech"
                  space on the Indymedia websites for right wing views and
                  racist posts--the people doing this knew that the 
liberal free
                  speech attitudes of most IMC volunteers would paralyze them
                  from implementing consistent moderation. This right wing
                  attack also included the posting of constant anti-semitic
                  content, right wing op-eds and articles (carefully 
stripped of
                  their source infromation), conspiracy theories, and 
other crap
                  designed to ruin the reputation of the Independent Media
                  Network.
                  I was part of the IMC Global Newswire collective during 
this
                  period and made proposals concerning a process to deal with
                  this problems. I also painstakenly documented the attack
                  patterns by the right wingers and showed that certain
                  individuals were posting similar content at the same 
time to
                  various IMCs. This campaign by our enemies was successful
                  because the IMC volunteers refused to implement aggressive
                  moderation and otherwise dragged their feet until the 
changes
                  were made earlier this year.
                  What did we lose when the right-wingers won? First, we lost
                  the Indymedia network as a public space for our 
activists. If
                  you remember what the IMC websites were like in the year 
after
                  Seattle, you will remember them as places where 
activists came
                  together to talk about issues. After the right wingers had
                  their way for a year, you would commonly hear activists
                  complain about Indymedia and say that they didn't bother 
with
                  Indymedia anymore.
                  Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take 
aggresive
                  action against racist and anti-semitic posts further 
damaged
                  the Indymedia's reputation with Jewish people and people of
                  color. We understand that some pro-Israel extremists think
                  that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but the IMC
                  network became a hotbed of just plain anti-Jewish articles,
                  opinions, and comments. Part of the problem within the IMC
                  network is that most activists refused to stand up to 
the free
                  speech totalitarians within the network, who argued that
                  everything posted should stay visible to the public. 
I've been
                  a free speech advocate for many years and often considered
                  myself to be a free speech zealot, but not even I would 
argue
                  that our websites should provide any space for right 
wing and
                  racist views. The racists have their websites--we don't 
need
                  to use our limited resources to promote their hideous and
                  offensive views.
                  The net result of this inaction is that racist and
                  anti-semitic views became normalized on Indymedia websites.
                  Sure, newswire moderators would remove the occasional 
racist
                  rant or picture, but lots of stuff was left online. This
                  normalization of racist content showed the racists and 
right
                  wingers that they could have their way with Indymedia. 
It also
                  alienated lots of potential Indymedia supporters. Why 
should a
                  Jewish activist participate in an alternative media project
                  that tolerates hate speech against that person?
                  I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of
                  conspiracy content to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I 
have
                  no problem with the occasional conspiracy-type article 
posted
                  to an IMC website, but I think there was good 
circumstantial
                  evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content
                  with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, 
not just
                  in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief
                  stakeholders: the activist community (and movements).
                  I still remain a big supporter of the Indymedia project. 
The
                  Indymedia project has become a revolutionary force that has
                  greatly empowered DIY journalists, rank-and-file activists,
                  and average working people. This essay is not meant to
                  criticize IMC volunteers, rather to call out to 
supporters of
                  alternative media projects to speak up and demand that 
the IMC
                  make some tough decisions to address these vexing and
                  persistent problems. The Indymedia project has great
                  potential. Let's not throw out the baby with bathwater 
in our
                  efforts not to step on toes.






            < Global Eye -- Apt Pupils | The Real Reason Baseball Players 
Are So
            Rich >

            the burningman writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 10:51AM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              I agree completely.
                  the burningman writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 11:02AM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    But I think a real way to respond is to encourage serious
                    participation. Write more. Comment. Argue. Make the 
content
                    as vital as you can. I made a decision to post regular
                    comments on Indymedia, not because I think everyone will
                    embrace my ideas, but rather to get discussion going 
again.
                    I remember the halcyone days of Indymedia and it blew me
                    away! All the promise of the internet was beginning to
                    unfold right before our eyes. I learned a shitload 
about the
                    European movments and took part in dozens of 
interesting and
                    lively debates. And then when the shit hit the fan,
                    Indymedia got confused.
                    Free speech absolutism makes it seem as if every 
webpage is
                    for everything. This is ridiculous. Intelligent and
                    thoughtful moderation that removes 1) slander, 2) 
racist and
                    anti-semetic rants and comments, 3) patterns of 
right-wing
                    posts, 4) porn, and 5) agent/provocateur behavior. This
                    isn't too much to ask.
                    I would add another thing. Several IMC sites have 
explicitly
                    identified themselves with anarchism, or one of it's
                    varients. Indymedia is not a party press, even for 
those who
                    don't believe in parties. Eugene is the most glaring 
example
                    of this. Check it out. Anarchists who support the 
openness
                    of Indymedia should speak against this.
                    Indymedia is not a front group for anyone. It is an open
                    space. By making feature articles the provence of one 
very
                    particular trend in the movement, some locals have opened
                    the door to sectarian takeovers. It shouldn't be 
tolerated.
                    Eugene isn't the only one, just the most egregious 
example
                    of what I'm talking about.
                    So, were Indymedia to put up a tighter basis of unity - I
                    think that should include maintaining open spaces for a
                    diversity of ideas roughly on the left (including the
                    ever-lovely "post-left" :).
                    I also think he's overstating the decline.
                    When major mobilizations happen, Indymedia has 
continued to
                    be indespensible. Several print publications have come 
out
                    of varying qualities and in NYC we have a monthly 
paper that
                    is just great for going on two years. That's something 
to be
                    proud of and it keeps getting better. And, Indymedia has
                    been spreading throughout the Americas due to the 
excellent
                    work of a number of people. Real contributions, real
                    movement.
                    But, that said, I agree with the particulars Chuck wrote
                    above.

                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 11:28AM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    I agree pretty much with Burningman (surprise!) This 
essay
                    may sound too pessimistic, but I wanted to bring up some
                    problems that really need to be tackled.
                    I'm also opposed to IMCs becoming any kind of "party 
press."
                    The challenge is to find a way to spell out the 
politics of
                    the IMC network in an inclusive way, yet make it clear 
that
                    the Independent Media Center does not stand for the 
values
                    of racism, anti-semitism, and right wing politics.

                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 12:43PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    Burningman is also right about the need for all of us to
                    work harder to create better content for Indymedia 
websites.
                    I've been doing that lately with a few articles I've 
written
                    on local housing issues. Another local anarchist 
friend did
                    her part by writing an article about the local malls.
                    She pointed out to me that Indymedia websites need more
                    investigative and muckraking journalism and less protest
                    coverage. Indymedia does protest coverage well, but as
                    several people have pointed out, including myself, 
what kind
                    of "alternative" are we if we just replicate the 
corporate
                    press in our coverage of protests. For example, it's 
quite
                    easy to find lots of pictures of police-protester
                    confrontations at demos, but much harder to find 
pictures of
                    meetings, or people cokking food, or folks making 
puppets.
                    Indymedia has the opportunity to report on the 
*process* in
                    ways that the mainstream media can't do, because of their
                    policy of "if it bleeds, it leads."

                  Durruti's Love Child writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @
                  05:54PM PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    We should also institute a policy of moderating
                    Marxist-Leninist posts. Just as we should have neonazis
                    posting we also don't want left-wing totalitarians
                    cluttering up the newswire.

            Savior Fare writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 11:00AM PST: [ 
reply
            | parent ]
              I agree as well. The NYC-IMC is an utter embarrassment. I 
implore
              anyone to go check it out. It is full of anti-semetic messages,
              pictures of cocks and prone to trolls (of which there are at 
least
              5-8 different names that disrupt all posts). The NYC IMC 
refuses
              to pull any of this off the newswire, I suppose, under the 
guise
              of some liberal, hand wringing "free speech" policy. What has
              happened is that the site has become a joke. Take a liberal
              collective, add a ton of disruption and you have a completly
              useless site.
                  the burningman writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 11:08AM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    Uh, not quite. Go check it out. Notice that the 
features are
                    up to date, local and international and well 
researched. The
                    newswire is unever, as newswire's are everywhere. NYC has
                    uneven moderation, but it exists. I suspect the above 
poster
                    has other concerns and is using this discussion to make
                    those points in a dishonest way.
                    NYC has done great work. It is a vital space full of all
                    kinds of folks. Much of the energy has been spent on 
getting
                    a team of journalists to cover the city and the world.
                    That's something a lot of IMCs might want to emulate. 
It's
                    important to generate content and not just be a reposting
                    and commentary haven. Know what I'm saying?
                    In fact, check out the content of the last issue of the
                    Indypendent. It's great. And all the links are up in the
                    features column.

                  same writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 11:20AM PST: [ 
reply
                  | parent ]
                    Savoir Fare writes: "Take a liberal collective, add a 
ton of
                    disruption and you have a completly useless site."
                    Why do I suspect you are one of the disruptors? Maybe
                    because it's not a liberal collective, there isn't a 
ton of
                    disruption and the site is well-traficked and hardly
                    "worthless."

                  nyc activist writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:23PM 
PST:
                  [ reply | parent ]
                    The Indypendent (aka NYC IMC Print Team) has been in 
decline
                    for the last six months. In an attempt to appeal expand
                    their audience, they have severely toned down
                    anti-authoritarian and anarchist content. Their 
rejection of
                    consensus in dealing with internal issues, amongst other
                    things, is problematic and troubling.
                    Many members of the team, including the de-facto 
'leaders',
                    are flat out anti-anarchist. They hate anarchist ideas
                    politically and push out and abuse the anarchists who 
have
                    put enormous amounts of time and energy in the greater 
NYC
                    IMC project. The newspaper, The Indypendent, has suffered
                    because of this environment.
                    The booting of Warcry and the selling of paid 
advertisements
                    were the first two steps towards (dare I say it) the
                    liberalization of the newspaper.
                    I'm sure this doesnt interest many people outside of 
NYC so
                    I'll leave it at that. If people want details, check 
the NYC
                    IMC newswire archives.

                  keeper writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 04:20PM PST: [
                  reply | parent ]
                    OMG the Eugene IMC logo is totally the symbol of Turkish
                    fascists ! The Crescent (appearing on national flag and
                    pre-republic ottoman flag) and the greywolf (turks 
descended
                    from wolves etc...).

            Escorpion writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 11:12AM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              Indymedia needs *better* trolls, not less trolls.
                  Better Quality Troll writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @
                  11:40AM PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    I couldn't agree with you and ChuckO more.
                    But I disagree with my brother-troll The Burningman 
who uses
                    this opportunity, as always, to cry "Sectarianism" and 
for
                    more marxist-leninist evangelizing.
                    Eugene, and any other Indymedia site, has the right to 
find
                    its own voice as an anarchist or anti-authoritarian 
center
                    just as San Francisco Indymedia has the right to act as a
                    party organ for the old Bay Area leftist establishment.

            Savior Fare writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 12:31PM PST: [ 
reply
            | parent ]
              uh.. Burningman, you're wrong. I do not disrupt NYC IMC. I 
find it
              ludicrous that you call me a troll because I find the 
content of
              the NYC IMC Indypendent and much of the newswire to be liberal.
              I'm not using liberal as an insult but rather a description-the
              content of the newswire and paper seems to suggest that 
government
              will change if prompted by its citizens and that the real 
problem
              is not governement but that it isn't being run correctly (or 
being
              run by coporate interests).
              And about the newswire 1-NYC never removes mutliple posts that
              clog up the wire. 2-anti-semetic and other posts are left up.
              Whether or not they are up there this very instant does not
              disprove my point. 3-the NYC IMC has done nothing to remove the
              offensive adn disruptive posts of idiots like "joey jo jo", 
Hank
              magnum etc who regularly post nasty shit about the posters and
              more.
              So, no- nice try, 'burningman", I'm not one oft he trolls. I 
am an
              anarchist and any anarchist who checks out the NYC IMC newswire
              and paper would notice that the content is a bit lacking in 
terms
              of a strong critique of state/capital and government.
            the burningman writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 12:46PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              Savoir Fare: If I assumed wrong, my bad. Content is lacking? 
Then
              write it and post it. Moderation is uneven? I'm all for a 
stricter
              policy. How do you get rid of nasty trolls like Hank Magnum? 
It's
              an open wire, they can change their name and post twenty 
times a
              day if they want. The system has fundamental weaknesses. That's
              the free speech tax.
              Is the NYC site liberal? I just don't see it. It's not a 
burning
              barricade, but I think a tremendous amount of work has gone 
into
              crafting a writing style (in the print group at least) that 
speaks
              to people instead of beating them over the head. It's 
readable and
              not predictable. It focuses on journalism, and news analysis 
not
              movment strategy and that's fine too. We need all kinds of
              writing. And, again, I don't see how that's liberal.
              Again, the most recent issue of the Indypendent is up on the 
NYC
              features column. Check it out and tell me which articles are
              liberal. If liberals post to the newswire, fine. That's what 
it's
              there for. No one is stopping radicals from doing likewise and
              quite a few do.
              And SF is open to all sorts of people. Eugene is not. That's 
the
              difference. SF is full of anarchists as well. The question 
is how
              open the environment will be. A Indymedia site that uses a 
brand
              name, whether Marxist-Leninist (which has never been the 
case with
              any IMC to my knowlege) or Primitivist, will keep anyone but 
those
              who subscribe to that belief out. That's why it's wrong.
              I'd love to read what anyone has to say, I just don't want any
              party organs using the name "Indymedia" when they are "Zerzan
              Media" or whatever.Indymedia is no ones front group.
            observer writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 12:47PM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              I think the issue is larger than any one or two or three local
              IMCs. Maybe we can keep this discussion on the points raised 
int
              the initial article?
                   writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 01:16PM PST: [ reply |
                  parent ]
                    you're right

             writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 01:17PM PST: [ reply | 
parent ]

              I agree completely with the above post. Maybe this article and
              discussion should be brought up at the upcoming IRC meeting? 
The
              IMC is still a good project with a lot of potential, but I 
think
              this is kind of a turning point, and a tough stand needs to be
              taken. I look at Argentina, Mexico, Tijuana, Uruguay, and other
              IMCs in other languages and countries, and I see the same 
type of
              lively, exciting debate and media empowerment that used to be
              common on the IMCs in the states. Michigan IMC has an 
interesting
              policy, whereby certain posts will be certified as favourable,
              based on e-mail responses and people's commitment to good faith
              and the mission of the IMC. Thanks for bringing this up, let's
              raise the volume on this issue. Save the IMC!
            Tonta and the Mask Man writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 
01:31PM
            PST: [ reply | parent ]
              SO, this is like saying that Fox News and CNN are totally
              discredited when you go to their discussion boards and post 
stuff
              like Barbara Lee for President, Bush Knew, and Cheney and 
Sharon
              are psychopathic criminals. Gimme a break. The only thing wrong
              with indymedia is a lack of technical tutorials on how to 
produce
              and promote digital video and audio. Peace out brother.
            James Anon writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 02:09PM PST: [ 
reply
            | parent ]
              I see a very VERY simple technical fix (one I wish I could 
do if I
              had the time).
              It's simple, because there is a great moral dilemma among IMC
              people about censorship/editing, all you have to do is allow
              multiple editors.
              Lets imagine for a second. Chuck0 our favourite anarchist new
              editor signs up as an IMC editor. He is given all the files
              uploaded since the last time he logged on, he looks at them…
              1) ‘Jews are dogs’ … ummm hard choice, lowest ranking won’t 
appear
              on his choice
              2) ‘Palestinians are terrorist dogs’ … another hard one, 
into the
              lowest ranking
              3) ‘Jubilee 2000 gets big concessions from WTO’ … a bit 
reformist
              but interesting, medium ranking
              4) ‘anarchists storm World Economic Forum meeting in Wales’ …
              great, high ranking.
              5) Etc etc
              I, as a loyal infoshop reader, when visiting Indy Media enjoy
              reading Chuck0 edit. Sometimes I visit Naomi Kliens, find 
Jubilee
              2000 webmasters edit educational on finding their 
perspective and
              I visit the pro Israel and pro Palestinian ones for a 
laugh/cry,
              and everyonce in a while even look at the unedited feed.
              No censorship, not suppressing of idea, no deleting of files,
              everyone is happy (except the pro/anti Palestinian/Israelii
              trolls).
            genericdefect writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 02:15PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              This was discussed frequently in the past. I thing global 
IMC made
              a good move with requiring the two-stage posting. However, I 
never
              go there anymore. This is good though, becuase it pushes 
people to
              focus more on their local IMC. One of the plans I preferred 
was to
              have to make people sign up. I do not think the comments 
about a
              lack of security hold water. If you adopt a slashdotesque 
plan of
              limiting posts per name according to viewer ranking, it becomes
              much more difficult to spam. If you can only post once per 
week or
              month as the case may be with a nominal ranking, then 
continually
              making new posting names is not very helpful. It is 
unnecessary to
              be ultrasecure, at least right away. Just being a hassle is
              sufficient. People with good reputations not only can post 
more,
              but they have more influence. It can work if the volunteers 
cover
              all the caveats that the public does not. It isn't two-tier,
              because the public is the source of how things fly. Plus 
"members"
              can vote on IMC decisions.
            House Rules writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 02:20PM PST: [ 
reply
            | parent ]
              Perhaps a "House Rules" for each IMC on posting and 
comments. It
              sounds a little bit like Republican laissez-faire 
legislature but
              it might be a start.
            Tsunamio writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 02:39PM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              Perhaps it would be best if you could make your own
              settings...say, when you submitted a story, you had to file it
              into different categories, one of which would be all the nazi
              shit...then people would set what they wanted to see, and if
              someone posted outside proper categories than THAT would be
              grounds for deletion. That's the only way I can see of both
              keeping free speech and not becoming a haven for neo-nazis (I
              suspect that if they can't abuse the system as well they'll 
give
              up and stop posting their racist stuff).
            Liberal? writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 02:44PM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              Leave it all alone and stop trying to control the flow of
              thought...If IMC disappears it disappears and there will be
              nothing you can do about it...Ignore the right wing... or
              respond...But do not censor thought- hateful or otherwise...
            Anon writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 02:59PM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              "free speech totalitarians"
              ? That's basically like saying fascism is a form of socialism.
              Yes, Fascists use the word "socialism" to describe 
themselves, but
              then again they have a long history of muddling words.
              Here's a commonly shared definition of totalitarian from
              dictionary.com:
              Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in 
which
              the political authority exercises absolute and centralized 
control
              over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the
              state, and opposing political and cultural expression is
              suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous
              institutions in its drive to seize the human soul." (Arthur M.
              Schlesinger, Jr.).
              How does a free speech advocate crush anything? How has the IMC
              opposed political and cultural expression?
              Chuck, what are you afraid of? Do you really think we're dumb
              enough and mean enough to be like Subject: "Jews are pigs" 
Reply:
              "hmm, good point. A//E"
              Is there an example of an IMC running out of band width space
              because they are being swamped by right wing speech? If that 
was
              the case I'd be for censoring right wing statements to give 
more
              room to better values on our website.
              Until then, against the "anarchist" censorship committee,
              -Anon
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 03:42PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    This post is a perfect example of the problem plaguing
                    Indymedia since its inception. The author has opted to 
post
                    as "anonymous," thus evading responsibility for the 
content
                    of this inflammatory post. This post doesn't help 
those who
                    favor less restrictions, because they don't know who 
posted
                    it. And based on my experience monitoring IMC posting
                    behaviors, there is every reason to believe that this 
post
                    comes from somebody who is simply hostile to 
anarchists and
                    activists (and myself).
                    After Indymedia-Global removed the open newswire from the
                    front page, the amount of work that the newswire 
moderators
                    had to declined dramatically. The hostile posters were
                    greatly upset about this sudden tilting of the tables
                    against them and they posted lots of complaints, 
including
                    many like the one above that simply called the moderators
                    'censors.'
                    The really sad thing about this post is that the poster
                    confuses free speech in general with the right of a
                    publication or project to establish guidelines. This gets
                    extremely silly when people argue that a magazine is
                    "censoring" them because their articles or letter is
                    rejected. Freedom of speech means that yo can go out and
                    start your own magazine--it has nothing to do with 
some kind
                    of right to be able to publish in somebody's forum.
                    This poster also assumes that I'm calling for more
                    'censorship' on IMC websites, assuming that *I* want to
                    control IMC websites. This is not only ridiculous, but it
                    insults the many people who have voiced similar 
criticisms
                    of IMC policies. I don't know what THE answer is, but 
I know
                    that we've tried many solutions, including technical and
                    policy-based options. One of the comments above make a
                    technical proposal--there have been many like this. The
                    problem isn't finding a technical solution, but it has 
to do
                    with the Indymedia Network and some local IMCs 
refusing to
                    take action, for fear of offending a few anonymous people
                    who think that right wingers should have the right to 
post
                    on Indymedia websites.
                    As I explained above, the right wingers were conducting a
                    disruption campaign against Indymedia, so we shouldn't be
                    surprised if a few of them anonymously posted comments
                    deriding anybody who advocated moderation as "censors" 
and
                    "authoritarians." The problem with right wing and racist
                    garbage isn't one of resources, it's a matter of what 
that
                    content conveys to the world about Indymedia's 
mission. Most
                    importantly, the existence of this content alienates the
                    primary stakeholders that IMC exists to support, such as
                    people of color whose voices are already marginalized 
by the
                    mainstream media.
                    As people who support the concept of alternative 
media, we
                    need to speak up to our local IMCs and the global network
                    and demand responsibility and accountability.
                    Let's take back Indymedia.

                  Din writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 08:44PM PST: [ 
reply |
                  parent ]
                    Too many people tend to confuse moderation with 
censorship.

                  ANONYMOUS! writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:26PM 
PST: [
                  reply | parent ]
                    Nothing whatsoever inflammatory about this post, 
Commissar-
                    you're a complete idiot. Why don't you go attack some SUV
                    driving soccer mom...this site is over... and you're the
                    reason.

            House Rules writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 03:11PM PST: [ 
reply
            | parent ]
              I wish it were that simple, anon. But have you ever sat in a 
park
              trying to read a book when a Jehovah's Witness has decided to
              stump speak two inches from your ear? Since there are no other
              benches available you have two choices: leave or pretend not to
              listen. I decide not to leave and attempt to concentrate on my
              book while trying to my balls aren't being twisted with the 
threat
              of enternal damnation. And soon enough, I realize out that the
              Jehovah's Witness has "censored" my free thought. Can't 
there be a
              median between censorship and letting ideological thugs shit 
all
              over your consciousness?
                   writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 03:57PM PST: [ reply |
                  parent ]
                    Good point, first I'd ask the Jehovahs witness 
politiely to
                    respect my right to be alone(freedom to not 
associate). If
                    s/he refused to leave then I'd have to throw some 
punches so
                    as to defend my right.
                    But is the National Alliance causing you so much mental
                    anguish just by posting on your local IMC that you are
                    unable to read or write what you had intended when you
                    visited the link in the first place?
                    Maybe if its gets to the point where there's so much shit
                    posted that its useless to try and use a certain IMC we
                    could have an electronic sit in on some of their 
websites.

                  House Rules writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 04:22PM 
PST: [
                  reply | parent ]
                    Have you ever asked a Jehovah's Witness to respect your
                    space when he is channelling the wrath of God?
                    As for the power of the fist to protect my right to read
                    George Eliot in the park, I think I'll pass.
                    The National Alliance? No, the NA doesn't worry me. What
                    worries me is the transformation of what could be a
                    revolutionary response to corporate media being 
squandered
                    into a pissing match between dualistic zealots of any
                    persuasion.

            Willhelm Reich writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 03:34PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              It is true that all "freedom fighters" use the dichomoty of the
              very bourgeois ruling class that they proclaim to fight. I have
              learned this through constant sex-economic and work-democratic
              experience. Establishment newspapers across the world post 
not a
              single story relating to the work and toil of the people, 
sex, or
              anything else relevant to everday life. They also have very 
biased
              coverage of "activism". So the Indymedia websites emerged as a
              response to this biased coverage, and it is just as 
irrelevant to
              the average man and women as any of the establishment 
papers! It
              is only of real interest to activists, it is stuck in a little
              ghetto.
              What is needed is a medium that strives to post news that is
              relevant to the average man and women. And this medium should
              strive to become and more relevant each day and to combat the
              irrationality of the masses, until this irrationality is
              abolished. The masses must learn to overcome their basic
              contradication -- their intense desire for freedom and their
              irresponsibility to do the work needed to in actuality achieve
              this supposedly desired freedom. This is should be the task 
of any
              medium that wants to fight for freedom, not this narrow 
coverage
              of the news of life that is only of interest to other 
activists.
                  Wilhelm Reich writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 
03:48PM PST:
                  [ reply | parent ]
                    I know how to spell my name, honestly! Look above. I 
got it
                    right this time.

            joe schmoe blue collar nobody writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @
            06:36PM PST: [ reply | parent ]
              good article. even if you think the right wing has "won," I 
still
              wouldn't consider it much of a victory. that just means that
              there's more right wingers out there with nothing better to do
              than to troll around on indymedia.
             writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 07:18PM PST: [ reply | 
parent ]

              I definitely think the moving of the global open wire was 
good to
              focus on the local Indymedia's. Of course, the lack of solid
              content is the collective fault of everybody---even though 
reposts
              can be worthwhile (take infoshop news for example), which 
compiles
              great news from other sources.
              Regarding censorship, it reminds me of chomsky's quote, 
which was
              to the effect: "I may not like or agree with what you say, 
but i
              will fight to the death for your right to say it." I would just
              worry about censors censoring ideas they don't like/agree with
              that AREN'T hateful/rightwing---for example, 'conspiracy'
              articlesr.
              Also, the Global site usually has a US/Euro centric 
focus--perhaps
              because most humans on earth don't even own a computer?
                  an anarchist writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 07:48PM 
PST:
                  [ reply | parent ]
                    That's what I worry about too. I have seen it happen. 
We can
                    go on and on about the philosophical issues 
surrounding free
                    speech as a "liberal" concept but online is an awful lot
                    different than real life, isn't it? Nazi scum need their
                    asses kicked in the real world, but I don't trust 
anybody,
                    Chuck0 or otherwise, to decide who gets to post on
                    indymedia... this is one of the very few free speech site
                    online, don't fuck it up.

                  Wilhelm Reich writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 
08:16PM PST:
                  [ reply | parent ]
                    "Freedom of speech" is what allowed a failed painter to
                    become the Fuhrer and waste tens of millions of lives. So
                    you enjoy your "free speech" but beware the Ides of
                    Painters.

                  Din writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 08:39PM PST: [ 
reply |
                  parent ]
                    There was freedom of speech in Austria and Germany circa
                    late 19th century and early 20th century? Shocking. I 
guess
                    all those anti-Semitism and oppression were nothing then,
                    huh?
                    It was the fall of classical liberalism in the late 19th
                    century that led to the growth of extremist politics - on
                    both sides of the fence.

                  Wilhelm Reich writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 
07:51AM PST:
                  [ reply | parent ]
                    Do you think you are Noam Chomsky or something? How 
can you
                    tag the rise of fascism in Germany or any other nation on
                    "the fall of classical liberalism"? Are you that 
retarded?
                    Fascism came to power in Germany because:
                    1) After the defeat of Germany in WWI Germany was 
subjected
                    to humilating terms. The Weimar Republic was seen by the
                    German people as something imposed them by outside 
powers;
                    the very nations that defeated Germany in WWI. This 
tendency
                    increased after the worldwide economic depression hit
                    Germany, and the Weimar republic lost most of it 
legitamcy.
                    2) Fascism calls to family values appealed to Germans 
raised
                    in the authoritarian family.
                    3) Hitler had charisma, he was seen by his followers as a
                    father figure.
                    4) The Fascists actively and constantly recruited the 
youth
                    of Germany in Hitler Youth camps, whereas the Social
                    Democrats and Communists completely ignored the youth.
                    5) The masses were incapable of freedom and 
irrational. What
                    better to appeal to such traits then fascism!
                    6) All the energy of the sexually repressed masses had 
to go
                    somewhere since it could not be released in orgasitc 
climax.
                    So they substitute their fullfilling their orgastic and
                    sexual longing for leader worship. In my sex economic
                    experience sexually repressed people who attend Nazi 
rallies
                    find them involuntarily ejaculating during such events.

                  Wilhelm Reich writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 
07:57AM PST:
                  [ reply | parent ]
                    What does free speech have to with the idea preventing
                    anti-semites or other racist for having a forum? On the
                    contrary this very freedom of speech you bafoonishly
                    insinuate should have prevented anti-semitism is what
                    gurantees all racists a forum and protection for their 
hate
                    mongering.
                    Also the anti-semites in Germany were complete failures
                    before the rise of the Nazis. At first their goal was 
merely
                    to do with away with Jewish emancipation. The Nazis
                    eventually tried to completely eradicate all Jews they
                    could. Quite successful when compared to the anti-semitic
                    political parties of Imperial Germany, if I must say.

                  Din writes on Tuesday December 10 2002 @ 12:04AM PST: [ 
reply
                  | parent ]
                    Wow. I'm a retard. Thanks for clearing that up. Nice 
to know
                    that anarchists are really tolerant and courteous.
                    I think you need to study history a lot more. It is well
                    known that classical liberalism was the dominant ideology
                    within Europe for the decades following the French
                    Revolution. The 1870s saw the beginning of its decline 
- and
                    the rise of alternative ideologies, including Marxism and
                    Anarchism on the Left, as well as Nationalist 
proto-fascism
                    and Ultra-conservatism on the Right. In other words, 
it is
                    quite well-known within the academic circle that 
fascism has
                    its historical origins at that point in time in which
                    classical liberalism "fell" from its previously 
privileged
                    and dominant position. That was my point.
                    I think that you are misreading me if you think that
                    "extremist politics" is *only* the particular form of
                    fascism in Nazi Germany.
                    I'm not arguing you on any of those points you list - 
though
                    each of them indicates a fall of classical liberalism as
                    well. What was the Weimar Republic? It was not 
anarchist or
                    fascist, I can assure you. Do not mistake me as 
championing
                    classical liberalism. My only problem with your 
statement is
                    the idea that freedom of speech led to the rise of 
Hitler -
                    when it was, on the contrary, the decline in freedom of
                    speech that led to his rise.
                    Anti-Semitism is a phenomena that is contrary to the
                    conception of freedom of speech. Was there freedom of 
speech
                    for the Jews or other minorities in Austria and Germany
                    during the late 19th century and early 20th century? 
Freedom
                    of speech is not that which is provided for only the
                    dominant group of people. There were no freedom of 
speech in
                    the late 19th century and early 20th century - a time 
when
                    Jews still had to convert into Christianity. Yes,
                    anti-Semitism could be expressed freely back then and 
not so
                    much now - but that is not because there was freedom of
                    speech back then but because it was much more 
prevalent and
                    acceptable amongst the populace.
                    Again, you were misreading me.
                    I think you are making light of the pre-Nazis 
anti-Semites
                    in Germany - and Austria. If it were not for these
                    precursors, Nazism would not have been as attractive - or
                    successful - as it would be during the 1930s.
                    Me retard, huh? That's mightily anarchistic of you to 
label
                    someone else you hardly know - and hardly understood - as
                    retarded. What's next? A final solution for me?

            walking revolution writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 07:36PM 
PST:
            [ reply | parent ]
              i really like what james had to say about ranking
            Pat writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 08:50PM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              Just curious. Is it really "Nazis" or "right-wingers" that are
              posting all over Indymedia? Or is it the .gov?
              Not trying to be cute by talking about some sort of government
              anti-IMC conspiracy theory. I'm sure some right-wingers 
do...but
              if you look at the way the IMC sites are spammed (especially 
the
              hour of the day) and the people/groups that get attacked...it
              seems to serve two purposes:
              1. Create divisions between people/groups/organizations; as was
              just seen on the IMC Vancouver site where someone posted an
              article under someone elses "name" saying so-and-so is a CSIS
              agent (A CSIS agent is the Canadian version of the FBI/CIA).
              2. Fill up the newswire with useless or controversial 
material to
              discourage people (especially newcomers) from posting or 
visiting
              the IMC sites.
              IMC sites have even been served subpoenas and court orders from
              government agents. They are keeping tabs on what gets posted.
              http://www.indymedia.org/fbi/
              Like I said though...I'm sure some nazis spam the IMC 
sites...but
              keep in mind that the .gov has more to gain from seeing IMC's
              decline than and bunch of dumb-ass nazis.
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 10:12PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    It's both, but it is the right wingers who are the 
problem.
                    They are on a crusade (jihad) after all against any 
form of
                    politics that questions that which they hold dear.
                    Ideologues tend to be very focused on the methods they 
use
                    to pursue their agenda.
                    Circumstantial evidence supported the suspicion that 
many of
                    us had that Indymedia was under attack by right wing 
people
                    who either hoped to destroy Indymedia's credibility 
with the
                    public and support from activists, or, to normalize the
                    existence of right wing content on newswires. I spent 
alot
                    of my time over several months in 2001 closely monitoring
                    posting patterns of right wing and racist content. The 
posts
                    came in bursts and tended to cluster around certain IMC
                    websites. For example, "COINTELPRO Tool" was one of these
                    people. He is a conservative libertarian who lives and 
works
                    in Northern Virginia.
                    The government does post disruptive content to Indymedia
                    websites, as we discovered on the IMC DC website in late
                    September. My suspiscion is that government and police
                    postings are done around the time of big protests. 
Yes, you
                    could argue that they have an interest in disrupting
                    Indymedia and undermining its credibility, but the 
Feds just
                    don't have the resources to mount an overreaching 
campaign.

                   writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 09:24AM PST: [ reply |
                  parent ]
                    "My suspiscion is that government and police postings are
                    done around the time of big protests."
                    Yes, I would agree.

                   writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:31PM PST: [ reply |
                  parent ]
                    You have not convinced me that 'right wingers' are 
causing a
                    serious enough problem to warrant your constant
                    deletions...And no, I don't work for the government...

                  Din writes on Tuesday December 10 2002 @ 12:10AM PST: [ 
reply
                  | parent ]
                    Chuck, the term Jihad is not synonymous with Crusade. 
We do
                    not need to be Muslims to realize that the confusion 
between
                    the two terms is derived from an ignorant Western 
mainstream
                    media.

            Doug writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 09:24PM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              There's a simple solution to all this, have seperate newswires:
              1.One big unmoderated one. 2.One for news. 3.One for opinions.
              Get the collective to agree on strict criterea for moving 
posts to
              the 2nd and 3rd newswires, then get volunteers to do the 
moving.
              There's plenty of people on every IMC that reads through all 
the
              articles.
              That way you don't have to censor anything, but the IMC is as
              usefull as if you were censoring everything.
              I've been saying this for the last year (at least), but 
absolutely
              no one seems to agree with me =/
            west coast imcista writes on Sunday December 08 2002 @ 11:06PM 
PST:
            [ reply | parent ]
              Haha, this thread is pretty funny. Its interesting to see 
all the
              different views on the different IMCs.
              Per San Francisco, it is mostly made up of anarchists,
              left-communists, undefined anti-imperialists, and some 
liberals. I
              have noticed it always takes the hardline positions on internal
              indymedia issues, aligning itself with other IMCs like 
Italy, the
              South American IMCs, and others against the far more liberal
              qualities of other US IMCs.
              ... which to me, is the real problem with Indymedia. If I 
look at
              Italy, or SF, or any of the South American ones, I generally 
find
              radical or revolutionary content. But sites like NYC, DC, the
              global site, and most other IMCs, they are all warmed-over
              liberalism, just not quite good enough to get on Pacifica. 
SF, in
              particular, I have noticed they took pretty good positions on
              Palestinian things (when latuff was attacked for being
              antisemitic) and the Ford Foundation issues.
              Also, the same program that SF uses many other sites use. 
And they
              have the Local/Global thing, so I don't even have to read 
the open
              newswire anymore.
              One other thing to keep in mind -- the absolute best place for
              news and pictures from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and more and
              more places like Chile and Mexico ... where else would you get
              your news besides Indymedia? All of those sites are core 
parts of
              the movements going on in those countries and they get 40 - 50
              QUALITY posts per day. Leave it to the US to liberalize 
things. If
              you want good IMC stuff, learn Spanish!
                  west coast imc visitor writes on Monday December 09 2002 @
                  09:30AM PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    Can't agree with you about SF. I find their stories to 
fall
                    correctly in line with whatever issue or demo RCP, 
WWP, or
                    the ISO is involved with at the moment. That definitely
                    qualifies as "hardline" but I'm not sure if it's the 
kind of
                    radicalism we want on the IMC. Wasn't the point of the 
IMC
                    to inspire people to create their own groups, their own
                    issues, and their own struggles? Not just download 
them from
                    the local political party!

                  pay attention writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 
10:33AM PST:
                  [ reply | parent ]
                    Then you just aren't paying attention in SF. Part of the
                    problem you describe is that IAC, RCP and the communist
                    groups do the most work in the Bay Area, and most 
anarchists
                    are busy eating in a dumpster and denouncing 
organization.
                    But certainly SF-IMC will not play sectarian games -- 
as you
                    say, they will promote just about any anticapitalist
                    activities in the area, and some liberal activities... 
thats
                    the point of indymedia, to grab a broad segment of the 
left
                    and promote it.

                  Sectarian Games writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 11:01AM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    I see, they don't promote "sectarian games" like 
smearing SF
                    anarchists as all too "busy eating in a dumpster and
                    denouncing organization?"

             writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 12:53AM PST: [ reply | 
parent ]

              an editorial mission would be helpful. if a direction or a 
mission
              is just too stultifying for the imc volunteers then there 
really
              is no hope for them.
              if the free speech zealots want a site to publish anything at
              anytime, they are more than welcome to create their own 
sites. it
              is surprisingly easy.
              "Indymedia-Global removed the open newswire from the front 
page,
              the amount of work that the newswire moderators had to declined
              dramatically"
              and i started reading IMC.Global more, so I guess you're on to
              something.
              "1.One big unmoderated one. 2.One for news. 3.One for 
opinions."
              this kinda like how newstoday does it. one for volunteers, 
one for
              registered members, and then what is essentially a chat board.
            ALasBarricadas writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:26AM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              Being a systems administrator who programs for fun, I see this
              primarily as a technological problem. If the technology was 
there,
              a lot of these problems could go away without people having to
              worry about "free speech", authoritarianism, an exact 
definition
              of what Indymedia is for and against and so forth.
              Slashdot may not be way ahead of Indymedia on the progressive
              scale, but it is way ahead on the technological and free speech
              scales in many ways. Slashdot does not "censor" people - it
              moderates them, in fact, the users moderate each other. It 
works
              pretty well. No one is censored, material is simply rated by
              users, from -1 (flames) to 0 (anonymous posting) to 5 (highest
              rank). So if you want to just read the best stuff, you read the
              4's and 5's, and if you have time to read everything, even the
              right wing crazies you can read -1 if that's what floats your
              boat. But people don't have to be subjected to that if they 
don't
              want to waste their precious time reading a lot of KKK junk.
              That's the point, it's there if you want, you just have to 
seek it
              out. Why should a supposedly libertarian site like Indymedia 
have
              more draconian speech codes than a technology site? Leave the
              right-wing racist stuff on, just make people dig for it.
              I've been keeping some tabs on Indymedia's tech team and 
they've
              been working on some of these issues. Philadelphia was playing
              with moderation ranking, and someone else was messing with the
              exciting field of media distributed via P2P and all kinds of
              stuff. There is a lot more commercial software with 
authoritarian
              moderation in it out there than free software with cooperative
              moderation.
              A lot of the hand-wringing about free speech and 
signal-to-noise
              ratio is unncessary as it can be done away with by continuing
              development of the software in a way that will keep everyone 
happy
              - most of the people who want to see relevant stuff can see it
              without a lot of junk, and those who want to see what crazy 
rants
              people are throwing off can see that as well. And as to who
              decides what is junk or not, the technology can be made so that
              the site moderators do, or users do, or you can decide which
              affinity group whose judgement you will work with, or whatever.
              Handwringing is pointless, what's needed is technological tools
              which allow you more options than you currently have.
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 06:50AM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    This is another problem with the Indymedia project: 
the idea
                    that all problems can be solved by throwing better 
tech at
                    it. Up until the change earlier this year, many technical
                    ideas were proposed. I thought many of them were great
                    ideas. The newswire switch, which came about in a manner
                    where the techies forced our hand, did solve some of the
                    problems for months, but you can visit the wire now 
and see
                    the same problems returning.
                    A really sexy ranking system would be fun to have, but it
                    doesn't address the political decision that needs to be
                    made. A new tech solution will do nothing about the fact
                    that right wing material and racist posts simply do NOT
                    belong on Indymedia websites. Indymedia needs to get a
                    political backbone and start drawing some lines.
                    These are political problems, not technical ones. We also
                    need to tilt the power away from Indymedia techies who 
think
                    that they have more say in these manners than the rest of
                    us.

                  problems in indymedia writes on Monday December 09 2002 @
                  10:37AM PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    The problem is the same old problem -- you have a 
bunch of
                    liberals in indymedia claiming to be anarchists. You 
have a
                    bunch of michael albert freaks claiming that this is
                    anarchism and they are the embodiment of it. The internal
                    politics of indymedia are deep and complicated, 
because it
                    is such a large, diverse and international project. 
This is
                    also why, though, it is one of the most successful
                    agitational organizations to come along in some time.

                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 02:52PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    Right. If you were to ask me what I'd like to see 
happen, it
                    would be for everybody involved in the IMC network to 
do a
                    serious of regional gatherings to hammer out what the 
IMC is
                    politically, even if it adopts a broad-based 
definition of
                    being progressive (I favor an inclusive Left-oriented IMC
                    network). The IMC network has also been dragging its 
feet on
                    process issues.

            Chris R writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 02:25AM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              One thing is freedom of speech (and the right to hear or 
read what
              is said) and the other is imposition of speech, or forcing 
you to
              read (even if just the few seconds needed to hit the "delete"
              button). Telling people to spread their racist lies 
elsewhere is
              not limiting their freedom, they are perfectly free to do it
              somewhere else. It's like if someone wants to put a "Vote for
              Bush" sign on your front lawn (or vote for anyone, for that
              matter). They can put it on their own lawn, but not yours.
            AnonymousMentalCase writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 
03:39AM PST:
            [ reply | parent ]
              Meh, I still think Indymedia is cool. There can be some dippy
              stuff in the Newswire but when shit really hits the fan that's
              where all the great stuff is (videos during Seattle, that 
was an
              intense time). And for a break try surfing through the various
              Indymedia sites (using a translator if nesassary).
            pr writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 04:07AM PST: [ reply | 
parent
            ]
              If a tech fix could filter the posts from those with a track
              record of violent murder,like
              anti-semitic,homophobic,mysogynist,racists then that would be
              cool. 'Right wing',seems a little more problematic,but if
              cointelpro tool is bad,what about bobby Meade? Cant some 
people be
              suspended? Rationed? Have time bombs put on them? One reason 
for
              decline and fall will be our apathy so I am planning a short 
story
              soon on the Ohio valley IMC.As soon as I get a copy of the old
              H/disc from the police,I'll make a start.If anyone knows 
anything
              about the Ohio IMC could they write me,please? TIA.
              profrv@(nospam)fuckmicrosoft.com
              Seth Finklestein might be able to advise on the tech side.Seth
              Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com
              http://sethf.com/ Anticensorware Investigations -
              http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ Seth Finkelstein's Infothought
              blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
              PS. As the Moron in chief has mentioned conspiracy theorists 
as a
              matter for concern and worry,surely the prospect of using 
them as
              a TACTIC is raised immediatly? Infowar by other means?
            pr writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 04:19AM PST: [ reply | 
parent
            ]
              I was refering to pretzelfeatures there,NOT our reverend father
              who I hold in the greatest esteem and respect.
            memje writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 08:03AM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              By a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included
              something called the "open newswire,"
              It was not a "strange quirk of fate" - sheesh... check out
              http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/openpub.html for a 
definition of
              open publishing... and look back and you might realise that 
this
              was a fundamental - not a twist of fate
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 08:17AM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    That would be at odds with what Evan has explained to 
me. He
                    explained that the open newswire was meant as an 
experiment.
                    My choice of words here was meant to convey the 
quirkiness
                    in how the open newswire turned into a big thing from 
modest
                    beginnings.

            no story to tell yet writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 10:03AM
            PST: [ reply | parent ]
              "no story to tell yet" over on IMC-NYC. Congratulations!
              http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=40609&group=webcast 

                   writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 10:57AM PST: [ reply |
                  parent ]
                    It's been reposted.

            Irish friend writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 11:21AM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              Don't tar us all with the same brush Chuck O -
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 02:33PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    The situation at different IMCs is, of course, 
different. I
                    doubt that American right wingers would bother with 
posting
                    National Review articles to IMC Ireland.

            ionad cumarsaid saor writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 11:33AM
            PST: [ reply | parent ]
              The Irish IMC is excellent. No tar for you.
            Makhno writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 11:48AM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              It seems ironic to me that calls for more formal rules and
              censorship at Indymedia are coming from a self-described
              anarchist. Chuck0's rationalizations seem rather specious to 
me:
              (1)What did we lose when the right-wingers won? First, we 
lost the
              Indymedia network as a public space for our activists.
              Have right-wingers "won" because they are able to post some
              obnoxious and offensive content on Indymedia, which others are
              free to ignore? Have activists lost the ability to post 
their own
              views and content?
              (2)Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take aggresive
              action against racist and anti-semitic posts further damaged 
the
              Indymedia's reputation with Jewish people and people of color.
              Aside from making a broad generalization, does Chuck0 really
              believe that all Jews and people of color are incapable of
              recognizing bullshit when they see it, and will assume that it
              represents the majority opinion on Indymedia?
              (3)...not even I would argue that our websites should 
provide any
              space for right wing and racist views. The racists have their
              websites--we don't need to use our limited resources to promote
              their hideous and offensive views.
              This argument rings hollow, considering Chuck0's support for 
ARA
              in their attempts to prevent any public expression of racist 
views
              whatsoever.
              As Chuck0 noted, Indymedia recently celebrated its third
              anniversary, and has added its one hundredth site, so where 
is the
              dire threat to its very existence that he complains about? It
              remains a valuable resource for activists and the merely 
curious,
              as well as providing a space for people simply to say 
whatever is
              on their minds.
                  Fat fucking ugly ass Jew writes on Monday December 09 
2002 @
                  01:16PM PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    Makno, do you think Jewish anarchists should be "free to
                    ignore" this comment currently up on IMC-SF (about the
                    Rainbow Groceries boycott)?
                    "So some fucking jews are upset because they can't 
find some
                    'kosher' snacks to feed their fat fucking ugly-ass faces
                    with at the local natural food store? These bourgeois 
jews
                    love to eat guilt-free according to their 'religion' and
                    'social conscience'. HA! If they had a 'social 
conscience'
                    they would return 'Isreal' back to its rightful 
owners, the
                    Palestinians. But they won't. They don't give a fuck 
about
                    human rights."
                    http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1548139_comment.php#1548858 


                   writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:38PM PST: [ reply |
                  parent ]
                    Well, big fat ugly Jew... you didn't pose the question 
to me
                    but I'll answer just the same- yes! They are free to 
ignore
                    the utter stupidity of the comments you posted...Ever 
heard
                    of the saying 'give enough rope and they will hang
                    themselves?'

                  Big Fat Ugly (and now) Angry Jew writes on Monday 
December 09
                  2002 @ 01:51PM PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    They've been hanging themselves over and over and over 
again
                    on the IMC and they haven't stopped posting racist 
shit like
                    this.

                  seattlite writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:35PM 
PST: [
                  reply | parent ]
                    I'm in complete agreement with Makhno... and I'm 
terrified!

            Uncle Fluffy writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 12:05PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              Thanks ChuckO for writing this.
              It's about time this discussion gets more attention.
              Many (myself included) have been making these points for years,
              only to get the same stale reply from the IMC faithful... 
"we are
              working on it..." I for one, am tired of waiting any longer.
              It is too late to save indymedia. The network is full of 
liberals,
              pro-capitialist libertarians and worse.
              I think that the right is not trying to discredit indymedia, 
but
              they figured out that the indy sites are fetrile grounds for
              spreading thier ideas and recruiting new members. And they also
              realized that the free-speech cult that is indymedia would 
never
              dare to prevent them from abusing the site. In other words, the
              right is simply using the site in the way that it was designed.
              and the IMC refuses to do anything about it.
              The entire definition of "the Left" is under strange 
re-definition
              every day on various imc sites.
              Out ot the death of the IMC will grow dozens of good sources of
              true alternative media, and maybe even a true decentralized
              network of truly radical media will replace the imc franchise
              sttucture. [[burningman: I would have much more respect for the
              indypendent if it were to seperate from the IMC and become a 
solid
              alternative newspaper with no connections to a website that 
allows
              rightists to publish]
              The IMC claims that it is the media of the 
Anti-corp-globalization
              movement. Over and over when it comes time to raise money, 
the IMC
              points to it's roots within the anti-corp-globalization 
movement.
              If the IMC is going to make that reality, then it must take
              responsibility for the use it's site is put to and the content
              that it contains. I just no longer think that the imc has 
the will
              to make this a reality.
              The anti-corp-globalization movement is a 
left-anti-authoritarian
              movement. There is no place for fascists in that movement. No
              place for pro-capitalist libertarians.
              But, the IMC provides a forum to fascists like Lyndon 
Laruche and
              David Duke; has pro-capitalist libertarians within some of the
              collectives; and has no clear political identity beyond the
              liberal concept of open-publishing free speech.
              Free speech is not equal to the Free Press
              Independent Media requires that you understand just what you 
are
              an alternative to.
              Editorial policy (and editorial process) do not equal 
censorship.
              [the redefinition of editorial policy as censorship is 
perhaps the
              most damaging of all "gifts" the imc has given to the left]
              The site i help run (the interactivist info exchange) gets the
              same rightist crap submitted frequently. But it never is 
printed
              and the rightists go away bored and frustrated. When rightists
              post comments, they are moderated down and it is clear that 
only
              well thought out inteligent comments will be tolerated. It 
is also
              about creating a culture that values the free press and 
reliable
              information over the creation of a free speech spew fest 
where the
              crazy and loud make it impossible for everyone else to be 
heard.
              Let the IMC die.
              Long Live Independent Media!
            ALasBarricadas writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 12:24PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              It seems strange to me that even a commercial technical site 
like
              Slashdot allows people to read posters lascivious odes to 
Natalie
              Portman, although they have to dig around for them, yet a site
              with supposedly libertarian ideals would censor people from
              appearing on their site. Of course, more pertinent stuff, 
like on
              Slashot, should be highlighted and the junk submerged, but 
why get
              rid of it? Slashdot doesn't, yet everyone recognizes them as a
              site focused on technical news, not whatever off-topic stuff is
              there. I've been on BBS's since the early 1980's, and 
realize that
              trying to keep a discussion from wandering is virtually
              impossible.
              Who is going to determine what is right wing or racist 
anyhow, a
              board of inquisitors, a council of commissars? Is being against
              gun control a "right wing" position? Was the part of the 
Italian
              resistance who reluctantly went along with PCI's surrender 
of arms
              after WWII "right wing"?
              Your suggestion is like a newspaper saying only letters to the
              editor that support everything the newspaper says 100% will be
              printed. And if some idiot can't tell the difference between 
the
              articles, advertising and letters in a newspaper, who cares?
              Either they're stupid, or more likely, they just see what they
              want to see.
            Makhno writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 12:30PM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              Note how Uncle Fluffy wants to extend Chuck0's proposed ban on
              racist and anti-semitic posts to include material written by
              pro-capitalist libertarians, as well, suggesting that they 
should
              be purged from the IMC collectives. This is precisely the 
kind of
              authoritarian mindset on the Left that anarchists should 
distance
              themselves from.
            Uncle Fluffy writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 12:44PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              Makhno,
              It is impossible to form an affinity group without denying 
access
              to some that don't share your vision of liberation.
              That is core to anarchist organizing.
              You prove my point that the IMC is breading a culture of
              sloppyness and redefining the very ideas of anarchism and 
leftist
              concepts in a dangerous way.
              If the IMC is the media of the movement, then it should reflect
              that movement in vision, politics, membership and politics.
              That is pure anti-authroitarian politics, no matter how you 
try to
              dismiss it.
            Makhno writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:00PM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              Fluffy,
              We are talking about existing IMC media collectives in 
which, by
              your account, some pro-capitalist libertarians are already 
active.
              What you suggested in your previous post is a purge, something
              more related to Maoist or Leninist organizing than anarchist.
              Perhaps it should be left up to each collective to decide 
who they
              feel comfortable working with?
            Uncle Fluffy writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 01:09PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              Mahkno,
              I am saying that due to the problems I point out that the IMC
              should be allowed to die.
              That since it grew without defining its politics, and nothing
              short of a purge can save it, that it should wither away and 
die
              of it's own dead weight.
            zxcnbv writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 02:34PM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              Indymedia never was anything special. Over 90% of the news and
              stories have always been pure nonsense. Conspiracy theories,
              communist nonsense, no borders nonsense, far right nonsense. 
IMC
              has rather helped to give the anti-corporativism front an ugly
              face. Look at the global mailing lists. There is no discussion
              whatsoever. IMC is so marginal and far far away from the common
              people that it is unreal. And the disgusting self-hype 
around the
              3rd anniversary celebration does nothing to hide it. All IMC's
              combined hardly get 100,000 daily readers. There are over
              6,000,000,000 people in this world.
              It is a cold reality that you must fight for your cause in the
              mainstream no matter how impossible it sounds.
              IMC is just waste of time and resources and it should be 
buried.
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 03:12PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    That's simply untrue. Indymedia is read by lots of people
                    around the world and the combined websites get a 
respectable
                    amount of web traffic. To suggest that Indymedia is 
marginal
                    is to deny reality.

                  zxcnbv writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 03:40PM PST: [
                  reply | parent ]
                    "That's simply untrue. Indymedia is read by lots of 
people
                    around the world and the combined websites get a 
respectable
                    amount of web traffic. To suggest that Indymedia is 
marginal
                    is to deny reality."
                    You are the one denying reality here. Indymedia is 
read by
                    less than one million people, majority of whom represent
                    activist scene, far left or far right - none of whom 
get to
                    have their say in the main stream media.
                    IMC does not reach the common people. IMC is very very
                    marginal.
                    The fight for a better world can only be won in the
                    mainstream. In IMC's we are hardly even attempting to 
put up
                    a fight.
                    Wakey wake up good sir!

                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 04:41PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    Here you go:
                    Alexa:
                    http://www.alexa.com/data/details?url=indymedia.org
                    Traffic Rank for indymedia.org: 3,434
                    From AnarchoGeek.org:
                    November 13, 2002
                    Fun with numbers, Indymedia traffic
                    So, every once in a while i look through the indymedia 
logs
                    on stallman to get a sense on where we're at traffic 
wise.
                    Because indymedia's spread out over several dozen servers
                    and we don't log IP addresses for security reasons. We 
also
                    use squid to keep the load off of some of our servers and
                    the caching tends to distort logging. All in all these
                    numbers should be considered guestimates and nothing 
more.
                    Stallman serves around 33 of the 100 indymedia sites.
                    Looking at the traffic for today, since 7am stallman's 
been
                    serving 13094 page views an hour. (I am only tracking 
page
                    views and not each request for images and mp3's which is
                    what a hit count does. ) If we assume that the page views
                    per hour continue through out the day then that means
                    stallman's going to serve about 538,680 pages today. The
                    sites hosted on stallman tend to have less technically 
savvy
                    groups behind them. Because of stablity problems, most 
imc's
                    who have more resources have moved their sites to other
                    servers. Those sites with more technical resources 
tend to
                    be better at outreach and promotion of their site and 
as a
                    result have more traffic. The exception being the 
www.indy
                    site which gets a around 160,000 page views a day. So
                    assuming that that stallman gets a third of the network
                    traffic that means indymedia is getting roughly 1.6 
million
                    page views a day.
                    Assuming that the traffic is steady and that we're 
actually
                    getting something in the ball park of 1.6 million page 
views
                    a day that means we're maybe getting around 48 million 
page
                    views a month. Of course it'll never show up in the US 
based
                    traffic tracking services because indymedia publishes in
                    over 20 language and 36 countries. Also i doubt many 
of our
                    users would let some company install software on their
                    computer to track their surfing habits.
                    How does this compare to the corporate media? I bet they
                    still get many times more traffic than we do. Viewership
                    numbers aren't published as freely as they used to be. If
                    you state how much traffic you get then it's easy to 
see how
                    ineffective web advertising has become.
                    Which of my hats would you like to eat? ;-)

                  zxcnbv writes on Tuesday December 10 2002 @ 01:51AM PST: [
                  reply | parent ]
                    1.6 million page views a day all IMC's combined is 
nothing!
                    In fact I thought it would be much more! One person can
                    contribute 20-30 page views a day easily if he/she reads
                    many news or refreshes the page to see if they are any 
new
                    comments. Some fanatical IMC readers can attribute 
over 100
                    a day.
                    In Finnish IMC the IP-addresses were logged, and it was
                    found out that people from over 8,000 different addresses
                    had loaded the front page in October... but don't let 
that
                    fool ya, the estimated number of daily readers is way 
below
                    200 (two hundred).
                    And majority of the readers are already activists and 
share
                    the ideas that are published.
                    IMC is nothing special, it is waste of time and 
resources.
                    The fight can only be fought in the mainstream no 
matter how
                    difficult it sounds. And time and efforts should be 
spent to
                    get results in that fight.
                    SO you can eat your hats yourself. :)
                    Want any mayonnaise?

            Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 02:40PM 
PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              I don't share Uncle Fluffy's call for Indymedia to "die" and I
              don't think that this situation is that dire. There are lots of
              IMC websites that don't suffer these problems, but there is 
enough
              of a problem on the Global website and local ones to merit 
serious
              discussion about the problems and possible solutions. I 
agree with
              Uncle Fluffy about how this drags on and on. What I write 
above is
              not anything new. There has been much talk in IMC circles about
              these problems and many solutions have ben drafted. The chief
              problem is that the network lacks the willpower and the 
process to
              move ahead on the decisions that need to be made. If there are
              lots of activists out there who are upset with Indymedia and 
don't
              participate any more, doesn't that tell us that we need to take
              these problems more seriously?
            Uncle Fluffy writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 02:45PM PST: [
            reply | parent ]
              Chuck,
              If I were to see the IMC actually take this shit seriously 
and do
              something about it, i might back off. but I don't think that it
              will ever happen, and think you will only give yourself an 
ulcer
              trying.
              Give up. let it die. move on. create something better to takes
              it's place.
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 03:16PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    I like Indymedia, the people involved with it, and 
think it
                    has a great future. Don't let the tone of my essay get
                    anybody to think that I hate Indymedia--my feelings about
                    Indymedia are of great respect and support. But people 
want
                    to see changes, which is the point of this article. 
I'm not
                    going to give myself an ulcer over Indymedia, but I hoped
                    that this article would prompt people to talk about
                    Indymedia. Somebody has reposted this essay to several 
IMCs
                    and there is alot of debate happening out there, so I 
guess
                    one of my goals in writing this essay has been achieved.

             writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 03:33PM PST: [ reply | 
parent ]

              Oh yes, Chuck, check out the Portland site- we love you out
              here...
            lynx-11 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 04:02PM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              "latest comments"
              i don't fault Chuck0 or others for their dismay and 
exasperation.
              i share it. but i sympathize with those who feel uncomfortable
              with the recommended "aggressive moderation".
              i wish this conversation would happen on IMC newswires. is it
              really impossible?
              why?
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 04:36PM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    This conversation is apparently happening on several IMC
                    newswires, which is awesome, because the reason why I 
wrote
                    this essay was to get people talking and thinking.
                    If you think that this essay is about what Chuck0 
wants the
                    IMC to do, you are missing the point. I've been 
involved in
                    internal IMC processes concerning these issues for over a
                    year, so I've had my say within Indymedia. This essay was
                    prompted by a conversation I had with an activist friend,
                    who told me that a bunch of activists up in NYC are upset
                    with hate speech that is posted to IMC newswires. I
                    understand that there is no easy solution to this problem
                    (and the fact that it alienates activists), but I 
think that
                    those of us who support Indymedia and alternative 
media need
                    to discuss this.

            lynx-11 writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 07:53PM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              to chuck0, i find much of your message baffling....
              --"This conversation is apparently happening on several IMC
              newswires, which is awesome, because the reason why I wrote 
this
              essay was to get people talking and thinking."
              please tell me where. i would like to participate.
              --"If you think that this essay is about what Chuck0 wants 
the IMC
              to do, you are missing the point."
              you certainly had me fooled then. what WAS the essay about?
              --"I've been involved in internal IMC processes concerning 
these
              issues for over a year, so I've had my say within Indymedia."
              so what? i don't see the relevance....
              --"This essay was prompted by a conversation I had with an
              activist friend, who told me that a bunch of activists up in 
NYC
              are upset with hate speech that is posted to IMC newswires."
              as i am also. the question is what to do about it. you say we
              should "demand.. that the IMC make some tough decisions". you
              support "agressive moderation".
              less "tough" proposals have been made. hopefully these ideas 
will
              be explored.
              --"I understand that there is no easy solution to this 
problem.."
              it's so odd the way you put this. as if it were a trivial point
              that you were conceding. but it is not so trivially apparent to
              others at all. in fact those of us who disagree with you are
              trying to convince you of exactly the opposite - that there 
may in
              fact be less traumatic, less "tough", "aggressive" solutions.
            Eric writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 08:56PM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              Interesting conversation here. At least the personal slanging
              matches (all too common in conversations where there is more
              talking than listening) are kept to a minimum.
              I see about 4 proposals for dealing with the right-wing crap.
              Is there going to be a worldwide IMC Conference or Meeting or
              Gathering (call it what you will), say where people meet as
              affinity groups & info is traded etc. Maybe then people can 
hear
              what is proposed & take it to their own local. (this isnt a
              suggestion but a train of thought over what may happen if 
one came
              about)
              There's talk & then there's action.
              This is a pressing need. There are so many posts that lack
              quality, particularily around Israel & Jews on Sydney & 
Melbourne
              IMC. I would guess it is deliberate by someone.
              Who cares who its by? Its happening, and if people focus 
(FOCUS)
              their attention on fixing the problem, then IMC will garner 
some
              credibility back.
              Is there a forum that is not about opinions for changing 
IMC, but
              suggestions & how to implement them?
              To point out a quick point: when people dont have a voice, and
              when a small voice in the gammit of political interactions
              presently bobs up, like IMC, those with the small voice go 
CRAZY!!
              Right/Left/Centre Wingers who feel no one is 'listening to 
them'
              (hows that for abandonment issues!) is the same as the average
              Joe's who listen to right wingers (ala Alan Jones) who 
'give' them
              the voice, while selling mobile phone plans & saying how 
wonderful
              the banks are, for $1million.
              Once all the proposals are on the table, then you are able 
to keep
              the disruptions out of the way, while keeping free speech 
alive.
              - Moderation doesnt necessarily mean censorship - Knowing that
              porn will not be allowed is not censorship against 'sexual
              liberation distributors'
              MY PROPOSAL IS (AND IS IT JUST THAT, A PROPOSAL OFF THE TOP 
OF MY
              HEAD, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE INNER TECH & SOCIAL WORKINGS 
OF ALL
              IMC'S) - just like the idea of rotation of editors suggested
              above, which is the one that seems the sanest to me. - A
              seperation between news & opinion as used on Sydney IMC is a 
good
              step. A further seperation as moderated will put the rants & 
raves
              in another place, so if you really want to read about Israel 
over
              & over again without going to Palestine IMC, well enjoy. - The
              columns could be as they are now: "News" "Opinion" 
"Highlights".
              With Opinion, click onto one of 2 options "Local Opinions"
              "International Opinions" * In peace times (no WTO happening
              locally or somesuch), the item is not automatically posted 
up. The
              newsitem goes to a holding pen in which maybe 2 or 3 people can
              read. Each person gives their opinion about where it will 
go. If
              all agree, then it goes there. This can work well with the 
neonazi
              rants. The person posting gives the preference to where it 
goes.
              If its a neo-Nazi rant & they put Local News (ie), then the 
post
              is rejected by all 3 editors. Why? Because it is obvious 
where it
              goes, and the poster, given a level of intellegence that we 
afford
              an average human, and if he/she makes this mistake, then the 
item
              is rejected. "What if they make a mistake, and post to the 
wrong
              one by mistake?" Well, they post it again, but put it under the
              right column. An email address needs to be sent, so that an
              automatic reply can be sent saying to this effect that "you put
              your article in the wrong area. Please make a correct 
selection".
              Sure "censorship" will be cried, but hey, they all go up, 
its just
              that there will be a place for their rant
              - Local means local. Becuase I do not want to click through
              countless emails about how bad the Israeli Govt is on the 
Sydney
              IMC. We are not Israel. Censor any Israel post? No. Put it into
              one of the columns
              As well, the most progressive thought posted here is: "How will
              IMC move past being an activist broadsheet, to one which is 
read
              by the masses of people (as much as the local Murdoch rag)?"
              Thats another story, would love to put my thoughts down, but 
for
              now, first things first I reckon
            W.B. Reeves writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 09:15PM PST: [ 
reply
            | parent ]
              I think this is an extremely important discussion. Oddly 
enough I
              recently posted a comment elsewhere on this same topic. For 
my two
              cents worth I'm reposting it here.
              -As for Uncle Fluffy's criticism, I don't accept his 
apocalyptic
              view or care for his intemperate tongue but I do believe that
              autonomous IMC's have every right to establish editorial 
standards
              consistent with the IMC mission.
              Here in Atlanta we came under coordinated attack from the 
National
              Alliance and other hate mongering fascist elements. After a 
great
              deal of discussion, not all of it amicable, we consensed on a
              policy which we believe to be both democratic and effective. 
It's
              not perfect but niether is the world we inhabit.
              I would suggest to my brother and sister IMCistas that 
people have
              a right to control the product of their labor. Free speech does
              not require anyone to support or contribute materially to views
              and opinions that they oppose.
              Consequently, I believe that the IMCs belong collectively to 
those
              who make them happen with their sweat and mental labor. No one,
              least of all those who oppose the vision of global justice, 
has a
              right to expropriate our efforts. We have an absolute
              responsibility to decide to whom we shall give our labor and 
from
              whom we shall with hold it. This is the essence of autonomy.-
              I for one have no intention of aiding and abeting purveyors of
              racism and fascism. Nestor Makno certainly didn't. Does this 
mean
              we have hard choices to make? Yes. Does this mean we won't all
              agree? Yes. Does this mean the death of Indymedia? Only if 
we let
              it die.
              In Atlanta we decided we wanted Indymedia to live.
                  Reverend Chuck0 writes on Tuesday December 10 2002 @ 
07:21AM
                  PST: [ reply | parent ]
                    I would suggest to my brother and sister IMCistas that
                    people have a right to control the product of their 
labor.
                    And this is one of the reasons why Infoshop News has 
always
                    had moderation. I see no reason for me to spend my time
                    providing a forum for neo-nazis and racists that would
                    sooner kill me than recognize my work on behalf of their
                    free speech.

            cal zero writes on Monday December 09 2002 @ 11:51PM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              Long Live the IMC's!
              First of all, I just visited the NYC IMC site and found _almost
              no_ garbage. Sure there were one or two inflammatory racist 
posts
              and a few conspiratorial-sounding ones, but come on...this 
ain't
              the virgin birth!
              Second, no one seems to have mentioned that much of the 
difficulty
              the IMC's are facing is positive and forward-looking. 
Radicalism,
              particularly in the US, is in a period of profound 
reorganization.
              Our society and politics have changed incredibly over the past
              decade (not to mention the past year), and, in addition, the
              function of the IMC's has had to majorly re-adjust to become
              appropriate for wartime. In this light, the success of the
              "anti-war protest movement" is astounding. Rember, if you will,
              that the war has not even begun! The Vietnam war protests 
lagged
              far behind the beginning of the conflict, and only really got
              moving after the DRAFT was established! A large part of the
              function of major-media propaganda is the belittlement and
              demoralization of radical struggle, and the portrayal of our
              problems as self-caused or unsolvable. Let's keep looking 
forward!

              Thirdly, I don't think that it is a "technical quick-fix" to
              recommend real technical or structural improvements, 
particularly
              when they obviate the need for censorship (which is not a dirty
              word in my vocabulary--just an unavoidable fact: _state_ and
              _corporate_ censorship are what I oppose). I, for one, would 
like
              to see much more experimentation with format and 
functioning. In
              this vein, I like the idea of breaking down the newswire into
              topical threads and highlighting postings that get a lot of
              discussion. This seems like it would help separate the wheat 
from
              the chaff, and encorage people to comment on things they find
              important. In addition, I would love to see the newswire 
divided
              into different arenas: local, national, global, perhaps one
              devoted to the structure and function of the site itself.
              Lastly, I take exeption to the suggestion that the IMC's should
              "die". I see them as an imporant part of the word-horde for
              radical language, and I have periodically relied heavily on 
them
              for information, intellectual stimulation, and outlet. In this
              time of formulation and definition, I think it is vital that we
              use our energy to build the environment of the sites to 
encourage
              experementation and development of thought, NOT towards 
purifying
              or rarifying it. As for being "more populist", this seems OK as
              one thread of the IMC's, but it is unrealistic to imagine 
that we
              can compete with television in terms of mass audience. This 
cannot
              and should not be our goal. At the same time, it is right and
              necessary that at some times the sites will work better than 
they
              do at others--no need to be so hard on ourselves in times 
that are
              already so difficult.
              That said, I think that the US IMC's could do a much better 
job at
              translating important articles from the rest of the world, 
even if
              it means using mostly automatic translation (huh, I just 
thought
              of that; maybe I'll try posting some using this method). I also
              think that the newswires, in particular, should be more 
simple so
              that they can load quickly and fit more on a page, with 
links to
              pictures and sounds--speed and volume matter!
              Viva la causa & Keep Yer Chin Up!
              P.S. I like Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo, and find some of his
              postings hilarious. The dude spends a major amount of time 
around
              the IMC NYC, so he has a lot to lose if it goes to hell. Like a
              homeless person in the neighborhood, he may be cantankerous, 
but
              ultimately he wants the streets to be safe.
            cal zero writes on Tuesday December 10 2002 @ 12:08AM PST: [ 
reply |
            parent ]
              sorry for those fucking apostrophes--of course I meant "IMCs"!
              What was I thinkin?!
            foo writes on Tuesday December 10 2002 @ 05:25AM PST: [ reply |
            parent ]
              Just wanted to second some things said above:
              1) There is a social issue: understanding that some action is
              needed, that "drinking from the firehose" is painful, but 
should
              be available (NOT the default though). 2) There is a technical
              issue: implementing a solution that allows people to see as 
much
              of the stream as they please. Personally, I read slashdot in
              unfiltered mode, because I don't have a problem ignoring FPs 
and
              porn spam.
              There are a couple things I don't like about slash, though:
              1) Moderation is anonymous, leading to *very* 
passive-aggressive
              behavior at times. 2) You can't pick which moderators to listen
              to. There will be some moderators whose ideas of what is
              interesting will coincide with yours, and some who won't. You
              should be able to chose a trusted subset of the moderators.
              And as for non-US content: I guess we all need to learn to read
              Spanish . . . .

__________________________________________________

TacticalMedia mailing list
Archivio TM List http://squat.net/tmc/maillist.html
TacticalMedia@squat.net
https://squat.net/mailman/listinfo/tacticalmedia
__________________________________________________