What if people could continue to publish stories to the newswire anonymously if they wish but had to sign up for an account to make comments and hence had to make their identities known? I don't know if I support this idea but I do think a lot of the comment section trolls would disappear if they had to post in their own name.

Trolls would go away... and so would comments. Philly IMC has a registration system and it never seemed to get any comments. I haven't checked in a couple of years, but that was the case.

The issue isn't general vitality, which comes and goes depending on the cycle of events. It's not that many have avoided all the bile and "I'm not you" talk.

A few turds on the banquet table kill everyone's appetite.

There's also the development that "open-publishing" describes the internet as a whole, and Indymedia is no longer even close to novel.

The blogwire was an excellent adjustment to this changing reality. Maybe it should also run on the front page.

I don't have any answers, but I'm glad people are talking about this. This site should be a great resource for info and discussions, but it often seems as if most of the people posting are a) right-wing trolls; b) dogmatic armchair ultraleftists with no social skills; or c) right-wing trolls impersonating dogmatic armchair ultraleftists with no social skills.

I mean, I was unable to go to DC last weekend. In the past, Indymedia's been a great site for following demos. OK, I know the site was down, but all I was able to find was a lot of nasty bullshit about Leslie Cagan. And there wasn't much else on the DC or national sites--I had better luck looking on nytimes.com!

I don't know, maybe we need more moderation, warning people that this is a community and not the world's biggest bathroom wall. Disagree with people as much as you want, but treat them with respect.

let's face it, protest movements attract all sorts of wingnuts. in real life, you can usually judge a wingnut within one minute of encounter, and promptly ignore. on the internet, with open publishing, the wingnut gets as much space as he pleases.

i think that the only solution to this would be user registration. sure, the number of comments and articles posted would fall, but at least the quality of the content would increase (hopefully).
the best thing about indymedia, for me, is following demonstrations in other cities as they unfolded, and then catching footage/photos of it, with analysis, after.

another option would be to abandon open-publishing altogether, and filter the postings. infoshop.org does this.

in any case, the site needs to be more restrictive. people will register and people will still come if the content is good enough.

NYC-IMC does not need to register posters, since they manage to censor postings of people with whom they disagree anyway. (We are not talking about racist hate speech or obscene language).

As to the poster who suggested that, there was posting a short time ago (before it was removed) which said if he had a problem here with people with whom he disagreed, how can he hope to deal with differing views among the general population. I concur.

Censorhip is both undemocratic and disrespectful. Let the postings speak for themselves. There should not be registration or editing, except for racist terms and obscene language.

As to "right wing" views, bring them on. I welcome the opportunity to tear them apart and show those who post them for the ignoramuses that they are.

1. you all -- the original poster and the commentators who have posted so far -- seemed very thin-skinned. "negativity" as such is not a bad thing, far from it (cf. Adorno, "Negative Dialectics.")

2. you also seemed rather elitist. "WIngnuts"?! Who are you to dismiss others as "wingnuts"?! Even wingnuts deserve a chance to be heard. That's what social revolution is: even the wingnuts as you call them get a chance to be heard, freely and without censorship.

3. very judgmental: "dogmatic armchair ultraleftists." Who are you to assume that people who disagree with you (even if their disagreement is harshly worded) are only "armchair" activists? Must one post one's resume to be qualified as an activist at your level? The word for your anti-armchair politics is "militantism," that is, activism for its own sake.

4. nasty remarks about Leslie Cagan aren't necessarily "bullshit"; they might be accurate AND nasty.

5. what this site needs -- in my 'umble opinion -- is LESS moderation. The "moderators" are quite often immoderate in their censorship of posts and comments. Unlike Boston IMC, NYC IMC doesn't have a "hidden" section and this deprives readers of the opportunity to judge for themselves. Same problem with infoshop.org BTW.

6. registration is a truly terrible idea. the Internet -- like NYC and the USA as a whole -- needs the protection of anonymity, not its destruction or reduction.

7. in sum, people have stopped coming to this site because of censorship/immoderation/thin-skinned people who don't know the difference between negative even hardshly worded critique and personal insults. Why? because people are attracted by participation. Remove participation (truly free postings) and this site will die.

NYC Indmedia needs three things if it's the improve the level of debate, traffic, traffic, and more traffic.

The reason Indymedia censors right wingers, for example, is the fact that it's a low traffic site. One link from LGF or FreeRepublic could overwhelm it in a way it's not going to overwhelm Slashdot or the Daily Kos.

The reason Indymedia censors 9/11 truthers is, once again, the fact that it's a low traffic site. Personally I loved the way the 9/11 truthers crashed the anniverary of 9/11 at Ground Zero in September. But their aggressive and relentless quality could also turn a low traffic web site into all 9/11 truth all the time.

The reason dogmatic purists tend to be so irritating on NYC Indymedia is, you guess it, traffic. When every posting for every event is met with "oh it's only a Leslie Cagan cattle drive" and very little else in the way of commentary, then these posts are going to seem demoralizing. With more traffic they'd only be annoying.

How do you increase traffic? Well I think leftists and real opponents of the war in Iraq have to stop contributing to the Daily Kos and Atrios and DU and all of the other pseudo left sites that only drain their energy into the democratic party.

I think NYC Indymedia needs a link on some large established media outlet for breaking some story you couldn't get elsewhere.

I think it needs to work on its google strategy.

But in the end, the answer is once again, traffic.

As someone who's played an active role in moderating and setting general policy for the NYC IMC site the past couple years, I probably am too myopic when it comes to this discussion. Its hard to break yourself away from your own patterns and the way things have "always been done." But here's a stab at some thinking on this.

I think its important to consider the purpose of Indymedia. I think NYC does a fairly good-- though not great-- job of fulfilling its primary role, which is to report on events that would normally be ignored by the mainstream media. Its done less well, though it has still done ok, in encouraging the people who actually participate in these events to write their stories themselves. Its done an adequate job in its third mission, which is to act as city activist calendar, though the lack of calendar software on the site and the difficulty of covering NYC have led to problems in this regard. It has done terribly in what might be seen as a fourth mission, to serve as a forum for inter movement disccussion and dialog.

Ironically, though, the articles that seem to get the most comments are those very movement dialog articles. Look at the "most discussed" stories for a week or two-- they're almost inevitably about anarchism, ufpj, trots, communists, sds, or something having to do with "the left." Very rarely do "newsy" stories get nearly as many comments. Maybe there is just less to say when you read coverage of an event, whereas, if someone says something infamatory about anarchism, it is almost impossible NOT to respond. Many of these comments, though, are shrill, crappy, and trollish, if not ourright right wing disinformation.

That said, though, I'm willing to live with the fact that NYC IMC just ISN'T the place for serious movement dialog, at least right now. Indymedia cannot be all things to all people, and, as it turns out, bloggers and others are doing a great job fostering this dialog on their own sites. The whole point of the blogwire was to give this kind of discussion a place on nyc imc, but still let it occur where it seems to go the most naturally, on the sites of the bloggers themselves. As long as Indymedia here is reporting news and empowering people to be the media, I can live with what we do well and don't do well.

I guess thats why I tend not to get too hung up on questions of registration or not. I can't see this happening in the near future, both for technological reasons, security culture reasons, and because, to be honest, it isn't really anyone's top priority. If I or someone else is going to focus their limited enegry, I'd much rather it be on getting a search function set on on NYC IMC (hooray!!) or helping community groups set up their own blogs.

Finally, with regard to the level of moderation on this site: I have to say thsat I just fundamentally disaagree with the views of "well known activist""

"you also seemed rather elitist. "WIngnuts"?! Who are you to dismiss others as "wingnuts"?! Even wingnuts deserve a chance to be heard. That's what social revolution is: even the wingnuts as you call them get a chance to be heard, freely and without censorship."

I just disagree. I have no interest in making this site a free for all for people who disagree with our fundamental beliefs and values. And this goes beyond philosophy. Check out the end of this thread, and read what Rosa Clemente had to say about the quality of the discussion here, and the lack of moderation.

 http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/54799.shtml

I disagree, sitll, with much of what she wrote then, but I do agree with this: I'm way more interested in making this site feel like a safe space for traditionally opressed people to share their thoughts and news than I am with holding onto some abstract notion of wingnut enabling "free speech." Long time activist, your attitude just doesn't fly, as it drives away many good, honest people who don't want to put up with the bullshit.

Chris

People don't bother having real discussions on here because once you write one contrarian reply that took a while to write and then some mysterious censorator decided to zap it because he didn't like it...well then you figure why the hell should I do that again? Do you ever read the debates on here? Because the moderators choose one side or the other you end up reading half a debate with the white anarchist bike rider perspective well represented and anyone who didn't agree deleted.

Who the hell wants to read half a debate? Who wants to take time to write a well argued response just to see it disappear for no apparent reason?

This site is basically like a datebook for this one white educated suburb-originating "anti-authoritarian" clique and little else.

There have been many events by political activists in nyc that ARE NOT COVERED on indymedia simple because they are outside of the sphere of this clique.

If you want more traffic make the site about more than one clique of hipster whites and their little anti-authoritarian antics.

Yes, Chris, I'm well-aware of you who are and what you have done: you are one of the primary offenders when it comes to immoderation. The opinions you express (and impose on others) are an embarrassment.

Please note your insistence on the words "fundamentally" and "fundamental":

>I have to say thsat I just fundamentally disaagree with the views of "well known activist""

>I just disagree. I have no interest in making this site a free for all for people who disagree with >our fundamental beliefs and values.

Do you realize you sound like a Christian or Muslim fundamentalist when you speak this way? Do you even care about your choice of words? There's is nothing "fundamental" in this world: everything changes, even what you position as "fundamental."

But the real disgrace you and others have brought to this site is that, in addition to disagreeing, you censor, you remove, you delete -- and no one can question you, or even see what you have censored, removed and deleted. You want to be a fundamentalist? Fine. At least have a "Hidden" section that allows us to see what you have done. As it is, you can act with total impugnity and it pisses off a great many people, you don't seem to realize how many people (outside of your closed circle, that is)

And now on to this:

>I'm way more interested in making this site feel like a safe space for traditionally opressed >people to share their thoughts and news than I am with holding onto some abstract notion of >wingnut enabling "free speech."

The self-righteous emptiness of these claims is appalling. You are a white male in a white male-dominated society, and yet you position yourself as the champion of "traditionally oppressed people." You don't seem to realize the indignity of your position, that is, speaking for people who should be speaking for themselves, not through you as self-appointed mouthpiece. Sheesh!

As for "abstract notions," once again you don't seem to realize that you sound just like George Bush when he dismisses the Constitution as "just a piece of paper," that is, just a collection of "abstract rights."

Free speech is free for EVERYONE, even those who you -- in your unapologetic elitism -- insist on calling "wingnuts."

Please try to restrain yourself from censoring (down the "memory hole") this very response. Thank you.

Before this thread dissolves inevitably into yet another bad Indymedia flamewar, I'd like to suggest that people who are sincerely interested in improving online activist discourse meet up at the upcoming Grassroots Media Conference.

Indymedia at this point is a logo.

When it first appeared, it was a herald of Web 2.0 – the much-discussed interactivity of the current internet. Before blogs there was "open-publishing."

Indymedia was a community until the brand succeeded and then it became a stand-in target or identification for anti-capitalist radicals/anarchists/leftists/scenesters. So "who" Indymedia is became more of an issue than "what" it is.

The whole motto "Be The Media" was trying to be something more than that.

So here we are, with a plethora of blogs, bulletin boards, listserves and an Indymedia in not very good shape. The blogwire here was a great idea. It's currently behind a tab on the newswire keeping it pretty quiet.

Maybe if it was moved to the front page (with a limit on number of headlines from any given blog in one day... like one, maybe two), it would generate more traffic.

But the discussion aspect requires committed people to engage it. I did for a few years, and still do from time to time. But I'm not interested in having the same discussion with online crankies anymore than anyone should want to read it.

The lack of IP tracking means that a very small number of persistent trolls can post a gazillion flamebait comments, using multiple identities and there's little site mods can do to address it. I understand the logic behind not tracking IPs – but it creates a built-in problem.

You have to be committed to the idea of Indymedia to participate, to wade through the mud and find those rare emeralds glistening in the muck, or trust that it's worth the time to meaningfully contribute original work.

I'm keeping in mind that this site is among the healthest in the network.

But ink-stained wretch was right: Indymedia was not on top of these protests. It is not "in" the movement, in the moment. That a stupid troll article dissing Leslie Cagan and UFPJ was the "discussion" isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. This is in no way a criticism of those who do contribute. It's to question what the limitations are of what we've done so far.

Since the Indypenent moved to it's own site, the quality journalism and commentary being produced by volunteers at the IMC posted to the NYC site is waaaaay down.

|| || ||

Also worth noting, there is a plethora of content management systems that weren't developed by the insular world of Indymedia techs (Dada, SF Active, Mir) like the open-source CMS Drupal. The desire to stick to proprietary "Indymedia" software has the opposite effect of what was intended. It makes the tech aspects of the work opaque. There are no manuals and it's there are a literal handful of people who "know" this software. That's a problem that hinders growth and demands too much of the techs who've generously given so much of their time.

More garbled rhetoric-- and rhetoric pure and simple-- from "long-time activist." Since your opinions, epxressed the way you expressed them above, don't really make any sense, I figure I'll do you a favor and help structure them into a logical argument (a lot of work) and then respond to them. You're welcome :).

Argument 1: "There's is nothing 'fundamental' in this world: everything changes, even what you position as 'fundamental.'"

In other words, nothing is true, everything is permitted, and because we don't really know what is right or wrong, true or untrue, up or down, black or white, then we can't really make any judgements about anything. And anything goes on this website, too, because hey, who are we to judge what is offensive or inoffensive, right or wrong, or consistant or inconsistant with our beliefs. Nobody knows, its all up for grabs, and hey, it save a lot of time if we just don't do anything anyway.

I won't even address the issue of my own, as you call it, "fundamentalism," except simply to question whether individual is capable of living in the kind of world you describe on a day to day basis. But the fact is, "long-time activist," I'd wager that communit(ies) in which you embed your so-called "long time activism" believe that certain things, very strongly, are "fundamental." Sorry to say, thats why people do things-- because they believe them. And thats why post modernists / structuralists are found mostly in the classroom, and rarely on the streets. Because action generally requires a belief.

Argument 2: "In addition to disagreeing, you censor, you remove, you delete."

In other words, Chris, you not only have beliefs, you ACT ON THEM. And that action is censorious, etc etc.

Because this is a website and not a barricade, if the website existed in a vacuum, if it was pure act of speech, than there'd be no reason to hide anything at all. But the fact is, "long-time-activist," the opinions expressed on this website exist in the real world, where people make decisions based on them, plan actions based on them, contribute or do not contribute based on them. In other words, the shit dropped here stains, smells, and affects people's political projects in a meaningful way.

Argument 3: "At least have a "Hidden" section that allows us to see what you have done. As it is, you can act with total impugnity and it pisses off a great many people, you don't seem to realize how many people"

Thats a totally valid argument. Please email imc-nyc-web and ask people involved in the tech side of this website (which I am not) to please expedite their creation of a hidden page. God knows, I and other have been asking for this for more than a year.

Argument 4: " You are a white male in a white male-dominated society, and yet you position yourself as the champion of 'traditionally oppressed people.' You don't seem to realize the indignity of your position, that is, speaking for people who should be speaking for themselves, not through you as self-appointed mouthpiece. Sheesh!"

No. I am not "speaking for" anyone. I am facilitating an environment in which people can speak for themselves. And facilitating that environment involves making certain decisions. Ask anyone engaged in serious organizing work in a community of color, a queer community, a labor community, or a million other real political communities (not the imaginary one you have created inside your own head, long-time activist) what they think of the NYC IMC moderation policy. But oh wait. I forgot. You don't KNOW anyone who does anything like this, "long-time-activist," because you are to busy with your own mastubatory utopian visions of free speech to actually know what political work is.

Finally, I at least have the courage to put my name to my comments, long time activist, so you can say that you are "well-aware of you who I am and what I have done" call me out for being a white man, etc. As opposed to you.

Coward.

Does anyone know why YouTube and Google video can't be embedded on pages here?

The video working group has produced hundreds of hours of TV shows, documentaries and shorts that aren't on the site... People would want to see that.

That's one thing that would make a gigantic difference.

Why don't you use some modified version of slashcode?

Slashdot has tons of trolls but it also never deletes any comments unless some lawyer threatens to sue them.

I guess it just comes down the fact that 1999 is long gone and internet has moved on.

Indymedia is the place to go for critical mass coverage or the latest on the court cases of various white heros...that's basically what it's been reduced too. Critical Mass and Daniel McGowan. That's the only news indymedia breaks.

but if you don't care about that too much why read it really?

"Langue de bois," literally, "wooden tongue." Useful French expression used by lefties to describe that moment when everything you say seems to turn into so much meaningless verbiage. And, yes, there's a certain amount of that on IMC-NY, as there is among all lefties, and then we move on because the issues may be pettily put but they're not petty at all.

Is it worth sacrificing function to form? Absolutely not.

I'm not going to get involved in the debate above but I'll say one thing about getting credit for hard work done in the activist community (media or otherwise) and that is... don't count on it. There are too few people doing too much of the work and there's not enough respect to go around.

One suggestion for Indymedia is to encourage open channels between emerging activists and Indymedia staff. In order for that to happen there might be a serious effort made to not only make welcome but to recruit unhewn activists with original ideas into the editorial staff of the site. At the same time equal effort might be made to keep open channels with longtime activists and established radical orgs in the city as well.

Another suggestion is to make apprenticeship a part of the working structure of the site. Training volunteers in one's job and seriously putting one's trust in them do it in one's absence will give the longtime media activist the much needed ability to take breaks from steering the ship and avoid burnout.

Just a note on this:

"6. registration is a truly terrible idea. the Internet -- like NYC and the USA as a whole -- needs the protection of anonymity, not its destruction or reduction."

If you're posting anonymously to prevent future employers from discriminating against you when they Google your name and find out about your politics or to prevent some future girlfriend from making fun of you ten years down the road, then you're probably OK here.

But if what you're afraid of is the government tracking your politics, then don't count on being anonymous because you don't post under your real name or even because NYC Indymedia doesn't log IPs.

It's fairly easy for the government to log every IP hitting a site if your ISP is cooperating with them (and don't count on them not even if they publicly say it). You can use "Tor" or some kind of anonymizer but it's quite likely that these programs have backdoors that let government agencies like the NSA track you anyway.

All that being said, anonymity doesn't preclude people from having stable identities online. It's usually a sort of honor system (on a high traffic discussion board you're not taken quite seriously if you're not a known poster, even if you post under a pseudonym).

Personally I don't think something like this prevents trolling. Trolling is a bit like Nigerian spam. You can't really stop it, only limit it. The best way to minimize the effects of trolling is to have a high level of content on the site.

You don't have a problem when you've got trolls.

You've got a problem when you can't tell the difference between regular posters and trolls.

I think Indymedia was at the cutting edge of the internet and information dissemination about eight years ago, but I agree that the network is not so healthy these days. Indymedia started as proto blogging and a place where movement people reported, posted events or engaged in dialogue.

Currently the Indymedia NYC site does some of those things though is lost in the nonsense and disfunction. The real reporting is at www.indypendent.org

The Indypendent newspaper project is the heart and soul of the NYC Independent Media Center and I want to advocate for serious folks to begin putting more emphasis on this website. The nyc.indymedia.org website is full of trolls, left wing wankers and other disfuntional types. At some point when do serious left wing media makers make a decision to break with this disfunction? At what point does The Indypendent make a choice to break from the restrictions of Indymedia? Or even better, at what point does The Indypendent take the "logo" of Indymedia and dump the disfunctional types within the network with their ceaseless harping and obstruction?

The Indypendent website should look to post video, blogs from writers and constantly update its stories and look not to the nyc.indymedia.org site.

Unfortunately, the IMC video team is defunct and currently does not exist, but I would love to see The Indypendent get enough money to be able to open up its own video team free from Indymedia restrictions. Which leaves me to the point that The Indypendent needs money to be viable, but that is a different discussion.

From what I understand, www.indypendent.org in the upcoming future could garner more hits that nyc.indymedia.org obsorbs, and perhaps supplant it. Contrary to what Rogoski (sp) says about indymedia being a low traffic site, both indypendent.org and nyc.indymedia get significant traffic.

I want to be provactive and I assert that Indymedia's functionality may have ran its course, but the projects that came out of it should step up and take precedence. Should we abandon nyc.indymedia.org??

Under the heading "Ah, yes" (see above) Chris Anderson has done more to confirm my analysis of the ridiculously defensive and elitist attitude of the NYC IMC's immoderators than I could ever do on my own. He pretends he can't understand my points, goes on to falsify them, then destroys the "straw man" he himself created. He is so apoplectic that he can't even get my pseudonym right! Well, no matter: I am in fact a "long-time activist" (35 years and counting!) as well as a "well-known" one.

It gives me no particular pleasure to see that -- underneath his bellicose posturing, weak insults and authoritarian self-righteousness -- he agrees with me: there should be a "Hidden" section on the NYC IMC. At the very least, such a section would certainly document his -- and the other immoderators' -- consistent suppression of truly free speech.

If we're going to create a non-authoritarian movement/society/world, the first thing is for people to treat each other with respect.

Indymedia should be a place where people debate tactics and issues within the movement.

But there's a big difference between people questioning the value of large peaceful demonstrations, arguing about what tactics might work better, and people posting stuff on the level of "that fat cow Leslie Cagan should do us all a favor and go die"—which is the level of much of what passes for debate on this site.

I don't know what the technological or organizational solution would be, but is it too much to ask that people not act like assholes? There are ways to disagree with people—even vehemently—without flaming them, and if you want to get people to unite with you, you'd better learn them.

People put a lot of work into this site and the paper. It's supposed to be a community. So have some respect for others. We all live in this building, so don't piss in the elevator!

That's the problem with all this lefty stuff.

In theory people are nice.

In practice people are assholes.

Maybe we should start an anti-assholeatarian movement and diss anything that has assholes in it?

Since a world without assholes will never happen lets focus on some concrete demands like health care, peace and decent education for all...by any means necessary, yes including using state power if need be...

Or we could just sit around and hope all the assholes in the world suddenly turn into nice guys.

This is only anecdotal evidence but from talking to new volunteers who come to Indypendent weekly meetings, open houses, workshops, etc. and from talking to people when handing out paper, I'm constantly surprised by how many people from various walks of life regularly visit this site. It's not just the "usual suspects". My hunch is that the people who comment regularly on this site are a small subset of the total readership.

Indymedia alternates between being brilliant and very disappointing. It's best-suited to provide "swarm" coverage of big events like F15, RNC, TWU Transit Strike, last spring's immigrants rights protests and the Brad Will shooting. This has been the case since Nov. 1999 when the network was founded to cover the Seattle WTO protests.

hi fran :)

Great Subject. For the record, I'd like to weigh in on the brewing brouhaha before giving my own suggestions: Chris deserves a beer. And BM (Were you thinking of what else burning man's initials stood for when you named the site?) is right: there should be more accessible video posting if it isn't available already.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of more moderation. I think that craigslist's user flagging system is good. I don't know how they weight it (one flag isn't enough to get something dropped; a human moderator probably just goes through the flags), but it seems to work well enough. Perhaps instead of simply "erasing" the post, we could just throw it on to a flagged pile and include a link to the post if people were curious what it said. So if you had eight good comments, ten comment troll war, and then back to good comments, you would instead see the eight good comments, a link identified as "removed content" that most people could just skip, and then the remaining good comments. Like Craigslist, we could have a simple set of guidelines for flagging.

Also, as it works now, you just go to the "add a comment" page. I think there should be an interim page with a brief positive note that reminds contributors that Indymedia is only as good as we make it, cha cha cha, debate is good, but trolls are ugly plastic dolls from the eighties, cha cha cha. Not a cold shower exactly, but enough to cool the heels a bit.

As for less specific suggestions, two additional notes: First, Indymedia isn't censoring anyone. I find this criticism offensive. We're not the government or paramilitaries, we're not banning your writings, or keeping you from making your own webpage. There is a mission, and we can lose sight of that at times, but serving as the wingnut bully pulpit isn't one of our goals. I know enough people involved in Indymedia to trust that writers and activists with real stories are not the ones quaking in their boots about moderation and the phantom of censorship.

Lastly, and I'm sure this final note will go over especially well with a bunch of people, including those who I consider friends (I signed my name, you want to talk about it, you know where to reach me), but what is up with the 9/11 and left embrace? This is a marriage made in hell and while I don't think that 9/11 posts should be blanket cut (there are a slew of real tie-ins: worker issues, government shadiness, as false pretense for war, etc), can we have a real discussion about losing the conspiracy people? They have their own books, webpages, articles, groups, frankly they're better organized than us half the time, but they're also peddling a mountain of b.s. and people who'd otherwise listen and participate roll their eyes and switch back to google news. I know we're probably way too huggy kissy for this to change, but I think we should at least debate the possibility of this.

But much love everyone.

"writers and activists with real stories are not the ones quaking in their boots about moderation and the phantom of censorship."

The more important question, I submit, is: "are writers and activists etc. quaking etc. about a handful of pimple-faced trolls?"

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, dude. [dude: vocative of dudus, i, n.,m.]

See:

 http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/55870_comment.php#56007

I respectfully submit that your more important question is the wrong one. It isn't an issue of activists and writers being afraid of trolls; the question is do the trolls turn off people who would otherwise constructively participate? If I'm a carpenter and one of my fellow carpenters wipes his snot on the hammer all the time, I'm not "afraid" of him, but I'm also going to avoid that hammer. Indymedia should serve as a tool for a number of constituencies; while it has to varying success, a lot of people, myself included, want to see it better and we feel it is a tool that is being underutilized, in part, because of trolls. And if that means more writers and activists participating and less snotty hammers, I'm all for moderation.

As for "who watches the watchers?" Congrats on your googling latin, but just because it is latin doesn't mean that it applies in the slightest. Again, Indymedia is not the police or the paramilitaries. It is an earnest attempt at a people-centered political media. We're not the "watchers." Who watches the watchers? The dips over at www.ihateindymediaandwrotethiswebpagetotellyouallaboutit.com (fine makers of other such websites as www.ihavenofriendsbecauseIknoweverythingsoIsocializebypickingfightsonline.com and www.pleasewouldyoucometomyhouseandchangemydiaperIcanmapquestyoudirections.net). Just because there is an accessible forum here doesn't mean that we're working to truck in nonsense.

Please, moderate away. I'm all for debate and discussion. I think that too often our stories are riot porn and macho glorification of insurrection and I wish the recent discussion of what should be done to stop the war hadn't devolved so quickly. Honest debate is great. But this is crap about watching the watchers. On the other hand, I do think there are valid arguments against moderation (I think they're wrong, but I think they can be rational). As opposed to this censorship junk which is just wrong. I mean, Res ipsa loquitur, man.
Anyway, back to work.

[Dudu: dative of dudus, dudus, n.,m. for "to the dude:" horse manure]

Res ipsa loquitur indeed: like every single medium of communication, this one can be used, either to equalize the relationship between the owners and the vict...I mean, participants, or to accentuate it. The form is as much of a political issue as its content. If there's anything I object to on this site, it's the progressive preening that hides a striving for control and domination. If you like that kind of thing go to DailyKos.

Using latin to show how much a badass you are is actually very eurocentric since all the major civilizations have their own classical languages. Maybe someone should post some things in classical arabic and then act like a genius badass when the rest of the people don't know what the hell it means.

Watching this thread unfold seems to have provided at least one answer to your question about "How can Indymedia improve discussions and coverage?". Hint: the moderators are not the problem.

Aside from obvious efforts by right wing spambots, I think it is way over-board this moderation burden (it almost feels like it serves some kind of role of the white mans burden -- albeit a lefty-heroic one -- the gatekeeper for the farm). As to ideas of the need to bring "traditionally opressed people" into the fold, so to speak, of indymedia. I wonder about this. I think there is really no such thing as "traditionally oppressed people". By no such thing, I mean in a political sense. In a victimhood sense, sure, but the task of political activism is not to call attention to victimhood, per se, as a kind of fate that we can do nothing about, but rather to empower and radically alter situations for a chance at a real break in the status quo, for the future, in the here and now. It is really, at a certain essential point, completely alien to reformist politics or any of that internal to the state, political process. Rather activism when it is meaningful stands to some extent in defiance, without compromise, at a philosophical level, to the state. In this way, it is connected at all times with everyone. So, this notion of "tradionally oppressed people" is itself, it seems to me a classification far too connected to the fate that the status quo re-determines and would like us to be caught up in. This isn't to say that racism, sexism, etc. are not intensive and have far reaching consequences for different people. Rather it is to suggest that the essence of developing political work across different "identities" will not be because of some kind of "sensitive" care for each others differences of oppression, but rather for where there is common ground, in the active, imaginative and interventionist efforts of genuine emancipatory political committment. This is the only place that things can start from, at any time, anywhere. After all, at bottom it is always about not only the basic "rights" to exist as free-thinking people who are not vicitimized (the whole negative idea of "human rights"), but also about effecting and imagining new possibilities of power and the possibilities of something well beyond being simply victims who deserve better treatment. In this way, the hard-working people at Indymedia can reach out to make indymedia available to be used by any one in the name of radical and progressive emancipatory political claims to truth. THIS is what should be clear and made clear again and again. And this can be done in some measure through other forms of meeting grounds. And other ideas of imaginatory counter-hegemonic free speech acts. Such as music events, etc. In this way, it is about building culture, across "cultures". Providing a genuine space for free-thinking, in its many folds. This to me is the great oppurtunity that indymedia has. And to do this it needs to then open itself up to all kinds of different opinions of what a true emancipatory politics looks and feels like. Not to mention how it can be thought of.

This does mean that trolls can find a way to hang around. But, if there is any meaningful kind of overseer that should be observing and guiding the process of the posts, it would, it seems to me, be only very simply points of process and other short reminders, that essentially seek to remind others how certain approaches can be read as trolling and baiting. Not so much moderating then, but rather gently but precisely *suggesting* to others in the thread, to stay focused on the topic. So not a repressive or obscuring force, but rather a distant participant (from the literal topic at hand) engaging only at the point of seeking to remind posters that the concept of these threads is for healthy discussion, not baiting or trolling. This is quite different then moderating. It is more about keeping the discussion lively and moving forward, then about anything approaching censorship. It is also about NOT being naive about trolling, but also NOT taking the "role" of cleaning all this up under any one person's burden of responsibilities, or anything like that. It is in a sense, a serious committment to instilling that everyone be quite alert to different methods, etc. of rhetoric, persuasion, argumentation. It can only, in my opinion, make discussion then, more precise and "honest". Without falling into the trap of some kind of belief in core "fundamental" values. Indymedia, it seems to me, is NOT a space that has ever been particularly good as being a host for core "fundamental" values. But rather has been most exciting and positive as a space which allows many to transmit views, perspectives etc of present political situations, particularly in regards to events, ahead or just passed. This should be its flag. Its calling. And its real engine. And this role as media should not be taken lightly. Events calendars should be front and center. Major stories which are covered in other indymedias should far more often appear on NYC Indymedia's front and center website.

Lastly I think indeed the greater number of people who now work hard at Indymedia in NYC, are closely involved in the production of the newspaper. To some extent then it has become a space for what will essentially appear in the newspaper. This is ok as far as it goes. But it is not, it seems to me, really tapping into what is the websites great power and strength. How it is a gateway to issues and events of resistance, aside from opinions and articles in the Indypendent. That is to say, that what the website can offer is far more of a portal to both awareness of events, and also to the whole network of Indymedia coverage around the world. Not to mention various forms of resistance, in NYC and nearby. By putting such things front and center. By representing the world as much larger and much more varied well beyond the hard working efforts of the cadre of people working towards the newest edition of the Indypendent, it can then signify quite strongly how Indymedia is an active participant in distribution of thoughts and journalist coverage of events far and wide, in people's own words. This is an important thing to represent and act upon. It will over time, speak a great deal towards how not only people at Indymedia NYC see the website and the newspaper but also how they imagine the struggle of emancipatory politics in the here and now, around the world.

"Name is Not Important" is very smart, but has obviously never moderated a website or other online forum before.

Just to respond quickly. I have list admin'd a number of busy lists, that were very much about providing a space towards gearing up, preparing, organizing for action(s) and developments/initiatives of a wide variety. I myself found that though the conversation could veer quite wildly, including alot of misunderstandings, attacks, etc. almost always the best approach was minimal intervention towards basic focus on the task at hand, and sometimes towards a possible working resolution of a contradiction. So, not anything like censoring, or rebutting or countering with ideas of "fundaments". This sends the wrong signal, I feel.

There is a problem in doing collective, participatory work in a capitalist social environment. A lot of people have a mix of beliefs and ideologies going on in their heads and hearts (for instance, humanistic ideas are highly prized over a structuralist understanding... This is very common with all its capitalist romantic pitfalls and disillusionments, not to mention ideas of Human Nature, etc). So, in my opinion, you have to let this play out to a certain extent, at the same time that you keep the main focus of what is sought, as the name of the game. So, yeah trolls etc are a pain in the ass, no doubt. Lastly, in my experience the biggest headache really is spambots. You just can't let the "moderator" role become a kind of gatekeeper thing. It is counter-productive in my view to an anti-authoritarian approach to participatory, emancipatory collective political work in the here and now.

It's editing. Racists, misogynists, homophobes, warmongers and apologists for exploitation and ecocide are perfectly capable of spewing their filth on their own bandwidth, at their own expense. Indymedia has no duty to abet and enable these scum. To do so discredits all Indymedia as a credible source of information, and every IMCista as a global Justice activists. One cannot simultaneously promote global justice and give succor to racists, misogynists, homophobes, warmongers and apologists for exploitation and ecocide. They are mutually preclusive.

1. it is irresponsibille of you (the NYC-IMC) to delete the comments to which you are responding: it's a one-sided argument, that is, not at an argument at all, just a screed.

2. it is disingenuous of you to claim that all those whom you censor are "Racists, misogynists, homophobes, warmongers and apologists for exploitation and ecocide." There are also people posting things that you and/or your little clique simply disagrees with, for example, the 911 Truth people, the pro-Palestinians, the anti-UFPJistas, etc etc

3. when you raise the image of "their own bandwidth, at their own expense" you are claiming that the NYC-IMC is your personal property simply because you volunteer there. It's like the pirate radio critique of the FCC: you do not own the airwaves, you simply use them in the name of the people. And right now the people are getting pretty pissed off at your self-righteousness.

4. "They are mutually preclusive." Er ah, "preclusive" is not a word. You certainly mean "exclusive," as in mutually exclusive.

5. You also do not know the meaning of "censorship" or "editing": when you delete postings and comments -- without placing them in a "Hidden" section -- you are not an editor, you are a censor pure and simple. Face it.

6. Ice-T: "I thought you said this country was free? Censorship a reality!"

"One cannot simultaneously promote global justice and give succor to racists, misogynists, homophobes, warmongers and apologists for exploitation and ecocide."

Wow, sounds familiar, taking a page out of Uncle Joe's playbook while you cement your own grasp on indymedia?

We cannot simultaneously build a revolutionary workers state and give succor to ultra-leftist, anarchists and Trotskysits!

Okay, so maybe the revolutionary state demands ruthless defenses against its enemies - or maybe it doesn't. Either way, it's hardly relevant to a bunch of lefties with access to a website. Or is it that a bunch of lefties with access to a website can only justify their rather mundane and petty activities by fantasizing they constitute a revolutionary state demanding, etc? And isn't it interesting that at the very moment when the whole country is gradually shifting left these guys, instead of focusing on dialogue, focus on closing down dialogue? Get a radical life, guys!

if you care so much about your credit with other activists based on the website, I have to wonder what the hell kind of work you are actually doing yourself... Believe me, activists will respect you not for your general opinion about how to deal with trolls etc on the site, but for specific works and projects you initiate, develop, and are a key part of.

Then you get "credit".

This other general discredit worry is nonsense. Though it IS a common hypnotic mantra among the folks who feel that 'editing' (heavy style as it is), is the way to go. It just hangs out in the drawer of rhetoric ready to be smacked down on the table, like a great irrefutable fact. But, it really has no substantial argument. Only fear and projections. It's not an idea of anything, just a worry. I don't think anyone is persuaded that its particularly relevant, except those perhaps most madly caught up in its smack-down righteous energy. It sounds like it has meaning. But, basically its hubris, twisted into the form of a perceived threat (if we don't keep the website a more or less pure space for our kind of thinking or agenda-- in all honesty-- we will lose credit with other really great, cool activists like us).

But honestly this is just nonsense. Waste of time. You will get far more satisfaction and also "credit" if you just forget about bad faith and false pride, and develop initiatives.

Right now, IMCista, I suggest that what will give you credit is to develop the website.

If you personally take initiative in any one of these ways or more, you will get good credit:

For instance:

Take initiative and stay with the process of getting youtube to work on Indymedias.

This will get you serious respect.

For real.

It's true.

I have a few questions, I hope you will consider:

How much does worry that potential advertisors/supporters for the newspaper possibly seeing an unsavory comment on a thread, effect the terms of your belief or degree of your committment to the current practice of moderation? Try to imagine: If you didn't have to worry about advertisors or the rent would you be as concerned with unpleasant, unsavory comments on a thread or being posted? I don't mean this in a cynical way, I just mean more in the sense of is there an impact felt from the newspaper, that may call for a certain kind of activist face of "respectability" to be apparent, rather then anything else. Or to put it another way, let's say that suddenly IMC NYC was given 10 million dollars, by some anonymous person, would you be so concerned with moderating the website, so stringently?

Do you, the moderators, personally like doing this work, in itself? Or is it a kind of noble obligation, at best? Or some kind of distraction. Because I can't imagine it is particularly interesting work for smart, young (I am guessing) people to be doing with their time, on a volunteer basis, no less. Is this the taking out the garbage task that some one has got to do sort of thing? Cause that seems like it would be a euphanism. It must take a great deal of time to do, no?

Are you invested in its validity, to such a degree that it is a role? A position? An honored thing? Because I would imagine it would make it very difficult after a great deal of time doing it, to actually then be able to break from what you have so far 'invested' in. Like a long relationship that doesn't quite satisfy but is at least steady.


I ask all these things, because I hear in Chris' response an effort to balance real concerns, in combination with a kind of frustration with "the bullshit".

Aside from how material concerns may be effecting a need for a good face on the website, I can't really for the life of me understand it tactically or on a personal level. After all, why don't you just let bullshit be what it is. We can all figure it out. We're all adults here too, right?!

So, in a sense, not to worry. You, the current "moderators" really can do something else. Something, that maybe doesn't put you in the thankless task seat of hitting the delete button on "the bullshit".

just wondering. and by the way, thanks for working as hard as you do, even if i disagree with the task per se. It seems like there must be something you believe is vitally important about it.

Indymedia has been superceeded, but is still important as a minor hub.

Definitely during convergences, definitely as an organizing principle for things like the Indypendent.

But if this were a science experiment, the results are in.

Take one part honest commitment, add a heavy lacing of anti-authoritarian philosophy, a pinch of publicity, a rash of good timing and you have a project that played a great role for a few social movements for a few years.

But people want editors. They want veracity and the ability to efficiently get information. Some people want to argue and so on.

All and all, Indymedia has not enough editing, open-publishing is stupid as bathroom walls attest. Indymedia isn't a reliable source of information. It is used disproportionately by one or two "networks" of people, but still can't speak for them because it's all over the place.

The anonymous posting is stupid because most of what people write is just argumentative crap and seems like one or two people with no life.

So, subscribe to the paper, post your "media" to the wire – but don't expect it to get too much better on it's own terms. If the underlying principles made more sense, there would be far more success stories than their are.

the best local imc site in the u.s. (imho) is indybay.org. that site is beautifully architected with its 16 issue sections, gets great community participation, is flavored with an occasional national or international story of note, has a handy events calendar at the top of the page, etc., etc.

if you can't get a calendar section like indybay's up on your site, then using the breaking news tab at the top of the page to promote a couple of events per day is a good improv.

keep up the good work folks!

p.s. us.indymedia.org is another site that's looking really hot these days though it's a different beast since it's only a syndication site.

Who cares? indymedia is one of those sites you look at during a coffee break or something. It's not like there is some big investigative reporting going on or some kind of serious research and analysis. It's basically just photos of protests and ads for various activist events. Either that or mildly lefty write-ups of stuff that come across the reuters 36 hours ago. Moderate, don't moderate, oh who gives a fuck! Everyone just comes here to look at photos of protests really.

boy, crazy trolling on threads like these. i haven't read through the entirety of the comments on this open call, but i thought i'd leave some suggestions that i hope will be helpful and constructive for people trying to grow an alternative information infrastructure. some things indymedia NYC could work toward:

1.) more web 2.0 capabilities. indymedia emerged as a concept when the internet looked very different than it does today; i kind of think it's in need of a global overhaul now. in particular, i think NYC indymedia could use RSS feeds of both the newswire and the features incorporated into the site, as well as wiki areas that could allow trolls and de-trollers to have at each other and reach some kind of equilibrium--other sites do this in various ways, from giving each post its own wiki that discusses meta-issues surrounding the post, to having a separate wiki "behind" the whole site which does the same thing and absorbs a lot of "forum"-type discussion.

2.) also, y'all could try instituting some kind of self-moderating comments system. [www.anarchistnews.org] is working with this kind of thing, where users are sort of able to "red flag" posts, and enough flags get posts taken down or marked or whatever. i think it's working with a modicum of success.

3.) a calendar. i thought the post that suggested a calendar was right on--if open-publishing purposefully explodes the distinction between so-called "professional" corporate news sources and the general public, then it should also help grow some spaces, not just for the sharing of news after-the-fact, but also helping to facilitate reflection, discussion and planning in response to the news. a calendar would be a big help with that.

4.) i love the look of the site after its latest redesign. just wanted to say it.

5.) the ability to embed video, and easily upload all kinds of media, is absolutely essential. NYC indymedia should help facilitate both of these things by revamping its uploader system (i feel like it's a little archaic right now) and revamping the back-end until YouTube, BlipTV, Google Video, etc can be embedded easy-as-pie.

hope these are useful!

>it is disingenuous of you to claim that all those whom you censor are "Racists, misogynists, homophobes, warmongers and apologists for exploitation and ecocide."

This is a straw man argument. I said no such thing. Stop putting words into my mouth. It's rude. It's dishonest. it's very bad form.


>You are claiming that the NYC-IMC is your personal property simply because you volunteer there.

No I'm not. I don't even volunteer here. I volunteer at a different IMC. However, the world judges IMC as a whole, so whatever goes wrong with one site, the other sites share the blame for. So it's all our business. We're only as strong as our weakest link. IMC has a lot of weak links. Until we institute and enforce a network wide editorial policy that prohibits the publishing of disinformation, Indymedia will *never* be taken seriously as a credible source of news. Until we institute and enforce a network wide editorial policy that prohibits enemy propaganda no IMCista can be taken seriously as a Global Justice activist. We cannot, for example, claim to be anti-racist, while simultaneously permitting Nazis, Zionists, Klansmen and worse to publish their racist spew under our name.


>It's like the pirate radio critique of the FCC: you do not own the airwaves, you simply use them in the name of the people.


This is an invalid analogy. True, the airwaves belong to the people. The play list, however, belongs to the station. No pirate radio station staff would tolerate being forced to broadcast commercials for the FCC. Why then do certain Indymedia sites permit their bandwidth to be used to broadcast what amounts to commercials for politics that they claim to find repugnant.


>Er ah, "preclusive" is not a word

Er, ah, yes it is.

See:

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preclusive



>when you delete postings and comments -- without placing them in a "Hidden" section -- you are not an editor, you are a censor pure and simple. Face it.


Wrong. Censorship prohibits the publishing of certain material. Editing does not. Editing merely prohibits the publishing of certain material on a particular site. The rest of the internet, to say nothing of RF and print, are free for the use of those whom IMC chooses to exclude. They are not being silenced, merely forced to pay their own way, and stop freeloading off us.

Indymedia has no moral duty to provide use of its bandwidth to the purveyors of disinformation and the enemies of the Global Justice Movement. Au contrair Indymedia exists to provide an alternative to the endless stream of filth that these people purvey through the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex. That's our moral duty. To give these scum use of our bandwidth is a betrayal of everything we profess to stand for.



>We cannot simultaneously build a revolutionary workers state and give succor to ultra-leftist, anarchists and Trotskysits!

This guy has it backwards.

(1.) We cannot build a workers' revolution within a state framework at all. History proved that conclusively. It's been tried. All we got was a new boss. Switch to Plan B.

(2.) History has also proven beyond any doubt, that when anarchists help Trotskyists, they wind up getting stabbed in the back. We anarchists can no more build the world we want by helping Trots than we can by helping fascists. Give half a chance, both will stack our corpses in pits. A boss is a boss is a boss. Whether he calls himself a commisar or a CEO is irrelevant.



>activists will respect you not for your general opinion about how to deal with trolls etc on the site, but for specific works and projects you initiate, develop, and are a key part of.


Indymedia *is* a specific work and project. How well it succeeds depends entirely on how well it is edited. As is, it deserves no respect. Those who respect the enablers of our enemies, are fools. But it is not respect we are trying to get here, but belief. We are trying to convince the world to believe that that we are telling the truth. We can never do that while we continue to allow lies to be published in our name.


>This other general discredit worry is nonsense.

Bullsh*t. We can't tell lies and simultaneously be believed. They are mutually preclusive. And yeah, that is a word. Look it up.

The only way Indymedia can ever become a credible source of information is to remove *all* disinformation immediately upon its appearance. To leave a lie on the site is to endorse it.


>You will get far more satisfaction and also "credit"

"Credit" is not the antonym of "discredit." We're not talking about being praised and rewarded here. We're talking about being believed. We can never be believed while we continue to allow lies to published in our name.

Indymedia has serious and committed enemies who, every day, attempt to discredit it, and us, and our ideals, by posting lies, forgeries, advertising, porn, and gibberish to Indymedia sites, which they can then point to as proof that we can't be trusted to be telling the truth.

These people are organized. They coordinate their efforts. Here is a sample of them trading techniques, that I saved from a now defunct BBS:

 http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/smashy.confesses.html

This is what we're up against. If we pretend we are not, they will continue to win, and we will continue to be irrelevant to the world at large. If we are every to have an impact, we have to be *better* than the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex. We're not. We a joke, and will continue to be until we learn to practice the most basic skills of journalism, starting with rigorous fact checking.

Journalism 101:

If it's not a fact, it's not journalism. it's fiction. If it can't be proven, it's not a fact.

ah, *now* I know who you are, "IMCista": you volunteer at the Houston IMC. And you've come here to the NYC-IMC to repeat the same absolutism that you've been trying to sell down there in Texas. You'll find as cold a reception here as you did there. If I had the time or inclination, I'd recall for you the obvious fundamentalism of your opinions: us versus them, friends versus "enemies," et al. But since I've already said all this with respect to Chris Anderson's fundamentalism, I will simply refer you to those remarks and hope you can or will let yourself understand them.

But where I volunteer, or even who I am, is off topic. We're not talking about me. We're talking about editorial policy. So when this guy tries to change the subject to me, or where I volunteer, or anything else but editorial policy, he is being intentionally disruptive.

It's not clear what gains by this. Maybe he getting paid. It wouldn't be the first time that people were paid to wage psy-war against progressive media. Far more likely, he get some idiosyncratic, psychological kick out of it. But whatever he gains, it's his gain, not ours.

What is abundantly clear is what we lose. Readers lose focus. Indymedia loses credibility. The world loses yet another opportunity to become a better place.

Indymedia is at a crucial stage in its development. Either it learns how to become a credible alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex, or it digs the rut it's in deeper and deeper, wasting our time and accomplishing nothing, In that case, one by one, the volunteers that keep Indymedia running will drift away, drawn by the allure of projects that actually succeed in making the world a better place.

As is, Indymedia doesn't do that. It's not credible journalism. And we're not credible activists. It's time to take out the trash, live up to our potential, and make Indymedia a threat again.

"...However, the world judges IMC as a whole, so whatever goes wrong with one site, the other sites share the blame for. So it's all our business."

Hate to tell you but the "world" does NOT judge the whole indymedia network based on one site. It simply doesn't work that way. It works much, much more positively and I'de even say 'fairly'. People see a site like Indybay and think wow that's cool. They see a site like NYC's when it is in the thick of covering an even like RNC and are into it as well. When sites don't have compelling things going on they think a gamut of things, but it doesn't turn into a global judgement. That would be absurd and most people are well aware that if they can't even read the language of say a polish indymedia they can't begin to "judge it".

"...We're only as strong as our weakest link. IMC has a lot of weak links. Until we institute and enforce a network wide editorial policy that prohibits the publishing of disinformation, Indymedia will *never* be taken seriously as a credible source of news."

Where do you get this stuff in your head? Indymedia is not an advanced guard army, on some kind of strategic front lines. That is just militant mystique clouding your ability to see it for what it is: an important gateway to understanding from an impassioned and often non-professional perspective what is going on, particularly around certain protest, etc. events. And one, by the way, that was built on an OPEN PUBLISHING approach. That is not pushing people to do things, but rather creating a a space which pulls people into contributing to it, out of free will primarily. Also, hate to break the news to you, but Indymedia is NOT structured to be THE alternative source of "credible" news. It never was and probably, due to it being all volunteer at bottom, never will be. A wire service type approach *requires* that people cover all kinds of things on demand, exactly when and as they are more or less happening. That is the REALITY of news production, kido. As it stands, the implicit understanding, is that if you are making money for rent, and something happens of 'news' interest, you can't expect to be pulled off your $ work to go and run to this, just because some Indymedia "Editor" person thinks it would be a good thing to do. You may be able to go and do it but the STRUCTURE of how 'news', etc. works at indymedia's far and wide depends on people who can GIVE time to the work of producing things for Indymedia, not sacrifice the roofs over their head. You understand this right? Because its basic. In other words, in my opinion, if you are really seeking to develop a radical news wire (a very good thing by the way, which was attempted in the past and you might want to become familiar with the pitfalls that arose) there will have to be the thought and plans built into its very core structure of how to deal with compensation for work performed in making news on demand. Because ON DEMAND is what "News" is. And that is NOT what Indymedia is. Nor what it excells at. Rather it is very good at covering events as they are happening where many people are well prepared in advance, such as convergences. And can be decent in producing refelctive pieces. Indymedia is much closer to pirate or internet radio, frankly. You need to really understand that. And love it for what it is, and what the beauty of that is. Then maybe networks can develop and surprises can start to happen.



"...True, the airwaves belong to the people. The play list, however, belongs to the station. No pirate radio station staff would tolerate being forced to broadcast commercials for the FCC. Why then do certain Indymedia sites permit their bandwidth to be used to broadcast what amounts to commercials for politics that they claim to find repugnant."

Your analogy is off. One, people posting here is not anything like a playlist. So, you are already assuming a great deal about the "property" rights here. Be real. This text takes up very little space in the scheme of things, on indymedia. Video which is relatively rare is far more of a harddrive eater. But "bandwidth" is not really an issue. What can become an issue ONLY arises at peak times. That is, when there is TOO MUCH INTEREST in going to indymedia's (almost always during a protest convergence that a given indymedia is covering). Then the impromptu tech teams usually sort it out by setting up mirror sites, and other ways of handling the big hits. So, please if you want to talk about technical matters of "bandwidth" at least be on the ground. But that isn't really what you want others to think when they hear you utter this mystifying thing "bandwidth"! No, you don't want people to understand how things actually work but primarily how they should work according to you. So, bandwidth just as well could be "the world" or "the people" or some rallying point...

"The only way Indymedia can ever become a credible source of information is to remove *all* disinformation immediately upon its appearance. To leave a lie on the site is to endorse it."

Holy Mackeral. Are you serious? So, by the same token in your view, there is no such thing as free thought. People don't really have any kind of right to speak their minds. I mean that speaking ones mind is OK as long as it reaches your standard of "information", correct? All else should be banished to the ends of the earth to rot in hell, with the rest of the scum. But, seriously, where do you draw the line between "disinformation" and "information"? Do you think that every word uttered by you is pure "information"? Because tell me if I am wrong, but you must admit that you paint a pretty black and white picture of the dilemna here. To many that might be seen as simple-minded, judgemental, not to mention a bit whack. But hey, maybe I am just not going with the flow of your absolute clarity on all things scum or otherwise... By the way, do you think that any articles on the Black Panthers would be a complete hideous, wretched, blood-spurting waste of our precious activist hearts and souls? Just asking, because they certainly had a hell of a lot of sexism going in their ranks... I mean, I guess they as a whole must be considered scum to you, yeah? Or do you have some well-crafted, righteous, yet tempered thing to say about that?!




"it is not respect we are trying to get here, but belief. We are trying to convince the world to believe that that we are telling the truth. We can never do that while we continue to allow lies to be published in our name."


First of all. One minute it IS respect, the next minute it is religous faith. Second, "we" and by that I mean anyone who has contributed an article or their time to indymedia, in some way or another is not aiming to convince the world that we all are telling the truth. Nope. We are all working off the good faith idea that far, far more of what Indymedia is about is about the truth. And then as contributers to this 'space' as both a local hub of the network, and within the network as a whole each person is contributed to their own development of telling the truth. That is precisely how the truth is being generated. And NOT from some kind of paranoic fear factor. If THAT negative shit is driving you to produce stuff for indymedia, you really need to take a break. Its not Us vs. Them. It's us making media to reach the world with the truth. And seriously: you need to look around at Indymedias!!!! Because THAT is still the story. There is a lot of truth being stated on Indymedias right now, all the time. It is not the apocalypse you are suggesting.


"...Indymedia exists to provide an alternative to the endless stream of filth that these people purvey through the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex."

This again is a negative construction. Indymedia exists to provide a space for coverage of events from a radical and progressive perspective, on a volunteer and egalitarian, anti-authoritarian basis. It is a positive space for truth. Not an advanced guard platform, with all the clique/hierarchical pitfalls that tend to bar spontaneous or temporary participations. Rather Indymedia has always thrived on a mix of local core participants open and energized with a flexible structure of participation, as events and situations demand and arise. That is why it shines during convergences (or rather has in the past).

It is NOT alone going to be the antidote that you understandably seek. And never will be. Rather it can be a part of the media acvitism/information struggle in a significant way. This was always the idea. Look, the spreading of good "information" doesn't happen in soundbytes or short articles, though these can inspire further research in an individual or group. It occurs through education and over time. For instance, many people barely understand what the IMF is or what Structural Adjustment means. One or two articles on an Indymedia will not do the trick. You are imagining that "news" is some kind objective category, in and of itself. The "news" is a capitalist construction that works in the time-frame of alienated work schedules, primarily. So, when people try to do "alternative news" the issue must be to understand that this cannot work over time as a kind of ultimately "legitimate" super Alternative news source, because the mystifications, and as you say, "disinformation" REQUIRES the time to A. show how it is false and B. explain how and why a completely other way of looking at things is both true and real. Hence, the (mostly long) essay structure is the form that authentic leftist analysis, etc. REQUIRES. And so you have Left Turn, etc. Leftist papers which have sought to be a kind of quick run down are always weakest in these areas, and excel time and again in the long form essay or sustained critique form. It is because they are NOT operating as news but rather as representatives of truth, that "information" arrives on the page.



All this is to say that you are spreading disinformation in fact.

It is too bad that you see the world in terms of absolute black and whites, if that is how you see it. There is a lot more uncertainity, and variation. Without that, we wouldn't have a chance. And we wouldn't have indymedia either.

>the "world" does NOT judge the whole indymedia network based on one site.

(1.) It's rude to shout.

(2.) Shouting does not add veracity to anything you say. It just makes you look hysterical.

(3.) In fact, most people, and all intelligent people, do in fact judge contents by their label. "Indymedia" is a label on what is purported to be news. So is "Pravda." So is "Weekly World News." There are, in fact, true stories reported in Pravda, and in the Weekly World News. However, no intelligent person takes anything they read on Pravda or on the Weekly World News at face value. Why not? Because Pravda and the Weekly World News routinely also publish things which are not true. Ergo, only complete fools take what they read on Pravda and Weekly World News at face value. Is this what you want for Indymedia? Why?

The same is true of all labels. People make assumptions based on what they see on the label. If you see a guy with a swastika on his arm, it's very hard to not assume he hates Jews. Of course, he could be expressing his Buddhism, but that is seldom anyone's first guess, at least not these days. Most intelligent, and all moral, people shun Nazis, and anyone who appears to be a Nazi.

So when the first time people hear of Indymedia is when they stubble on stuff like this:

 http://tinyurl.com/yujn9m

if they are intelligent and moral people, they never read Indymedia again. They rightly assume that we are soft on racism, and therefore part of the problem.

So I cannot help but wonder why you are trying so hard, and with such hysteria, to convince IMCistas to follow a policy that drives moral and intelligent people away from Indymedia. What's your agenda anyway? Why do you want people to mistrust IMCistas? What's in it for you?


>text takes up very little space in the scheme of things, on indymedia. Video which is relatively rare is far more of a harddrive eater. But "bandwidth" is not really an issue.

The amount of bandwidth is not the issue. The content of the bandwidth is the issue. Are we to condone Nazism, solely because they only killed twenty or thirty million people? After all, there were a couple billion people alive on the planet at the time, and most of them never even saw a Nazi, let alone got killed by one. Does than mean that the twenty to thirty million they did kill didn't matter?


> in your view, there is no such thing as free thought. People don't really have any kind of right to speak their minds. I mean that speaking ones mind is OK as long as it reaches your standard of "information", correct? All else should be banished to the ends of the earth to rot in hell, with the rest of the scum.

You're lying. I said no such thing. Stop putting words into my mouth. It's rude. It's dishonest. It's very bad form.

(1.) There is a world of difference between "speaking one's mind" and "telling the truth." You can speak your mind anywhere else, but on a news service, you must tell the truth. Otherwise, it's not a news service.

(2.) News, by definition, is true. That which is not true, is not news. It's fiction. No entity that claims to be a news service can publish fiction, and be believed when it claims to be a news service. They are mutually preclusive. (Yeah, it's a word. See above.)

(3.) People are free to speak their minds. It's a big internet, and a bigger world. But Indymedia is not the world. It's not even the internet. It's a news service, or at least that's what it claims to be. As long as it publishes lies, it's not a news service, and that claim itself is a lie.

(4.) Indymedia can never become a credible alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex until it stops publishing lies. As long as it publishes lies, it is no alternative. It is, at best, a pale imitation.

(5.) Again I ask you, why do you want Indymedia to publish lies? Why do you want people to distrust us? You must have a reason. What is it?



>OPEN PUBLISHING

(1.) You're shouting again. Please calm down. Shouting does not help you make your case. All it does is make you look hysterical. Do you want to look hysterical? Why? What do you gain?

(2.) "Open publishing" does not mean "no editing." It merely means that anyone can post anything they want. It does not mean that the editors have to leave it there. In fact, all IMCs edit. There is no IMC that does not edit. There used to be, but they were shut down by trolls flooding the sites with spam, lies, forgeries, porn, advertising and gibberish

(3.) While all IMCs edit, editing is not consistent. Some sites do an excellent job. Others permit their bandwidth to be used to discredit Indymedia, the Global Justice Movement in general, and everything we stand for.

(4.) We need a network wide editorial policy that, at the very least, prohibits disinformation. Anything that is factually incorrect should be removed immediately upon posting. IMCs that fail to do so, should not be allowed to use the name "Indymedia." Of course, they should be allowed to continue to publish. Speech, after all is free. I'm not proposing that they be shut down. I'm proposing that they not be allowed to use the name Indymedia, or be listed in our DNS cities list.

(5.) Again, I ask, why do you want cesspits of lies, racism and porn, like Utah-IMC or NC-IMC to be able to use the name "Indymedia," and alienate the very people we most want to reach? What do you gain by driving people away from Indymedia, and from the global Justice Movement it represents?



>Indymedia exists to provide a space for coverage of events from a radical and progressive perspective, on a volunteer and egalitarian, anti-authoritarian basis. It is a positive space for truth.

Indeed. That's my point exactly. Indymedia can never be a "positive space for truth" and simultaneously publish lies, porn, gibberish and spam, let alone racist propaganda. It alienates the very people who want a "positive space for truth" to exist on the net.

Six years ago, when I first got involved with Indymedia, I first took an informal poll among radicals in my hometown whom I know personally. I've been an activist for nearly half a century, and I'm a compulsive networker, so I know a lot of them. I asked them all what they thought of this new fangled thing on the net called "Indymedia." The majority of them, and the overwhelming majority of the women among them, said that they didn't use Indymedia because they didn't want to have to wade through a bunch of crap to read the news. They'd rather rely on the grapevine.

I got involved with Indymedia anyway, because a couple of them convinced me that Indymedia had potential, that once IMCistas learned to apply the basic principles of journalism to their work, and devoted sufficient time to training aspiring citizen-journalists, Indymedia could, in fact, provide an alternative to the corporate-government's ubiquitous propaganda mill.

Open publishing is a sound concept, at least when it is coupled with responsible editing. Ordinary people really can do a better job of reporting the news that the corporate hacks on TV. However, not every ordinary person can, or even wants to. In fact, ordinary people who can produce quality journalism are relatively rare. But that's not the real problem.

The real problem is that that not everyone who makes use of Indymedia's open publishing has Indymedia's best interests in mind, or those of the Global Justice Movement. Au contrair, they are our enemies. They use open publishing to thwart our efforts to create a new world of just and sustainable peace. They often use techniques straight out of COINTELPRO.

See:

 http://aia.mahost.org/sec_cointelpro.html

To not defend Indymedia, and the Global Justice Movement in general, against the attacks of our enemies, is to promote our enemies' agenda.

And so, I ask you again, why are you trying to convince us to promote our enemies' agenda? What's in it for you?

>Free speech is for everyone

Speech is free. Bandwidth is not. If you want to bad mouth Global Justice, pay your own way, and stop freeloading off Indymedia.

All this blather and spew adds up to, is this: Certain people are very upset by the possibility of Indymedia's enemies no longer being able to use its bandwidth to tell lies, promote racism, praise war and excuse exploitation and ecocide. They are really, really, really upset. That tells us all we ever need to know about them, their agenda and how best to deal with them.

Just ask yourselves, IMCistas, these three questions:

(1.) What kind of people want you to hurt your own cause?

(2.) What will happen if you help them?

(3.) What do you want Indymedia to be, a credible source of information, or a weapon in the hands of our enemies?