|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
The Future of the U-C IMC Website |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Riismandel
Email: paul-imc (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified!)
Address: Urbana, IL |
10 Jan 2002
Modified: 13 Jan 2002 |
|
In this "treatise" I discuss some of the problems the U-C IMC has been facing over the type and amount of non-local content posted to our newswire. I propose a direction for addressing the problems and the debate surrounding them. |
This little treatise ended up being longer than I first intended when I started writing it. But I think it successfully encapsulates my thinking on the subject. I hope you'll take some time to read it and consider the issues at hand. Perhaps you'll disagree with all or part of it. If so, please offer thoughts, ideas and arguments. Thanks.
----
Tonight the IMC Tech Group decided to do a test installation of the website software that the Philly IMC (http://www.phillyimc.org) uses, we call it PhillySlash, which seems to be more stable code that is easier to work with.
This code offers several features and advantages over the current website software (Active), but the one that interests me most is that it allows for a categorized newswire. This categorization feature interests me because I think it might help us resolve some of our problems and controversies over postings on our newswire.
The Problems:
Currently our website's newswire is just one big stack of stories in reverse chronological posting order. There is no priority or sorting. This means that a repost of a story from the Nation gets stacked in with a locally written story by an IMCista about labor troubles in Decatur. It also means that stories by so-called IMC "spammers," who post their stories to many or all IMC websites, also share this space. This latter type of poster has been the impetus for much discussion at the steering group lately and was the reason why the IMC's Website Appropriate Use Policy (http://urbana.indymedia.org/website_policy.php3) and Abuse Abatement Policy (http://urbana.indymedia.org/abuse_policy.php3) were written and passed. However, even with such policies in place, there is still not consensus on how to deal with different posters/"spammers."
Part of the problems with the "spammers" comes from the fact that their postings tend towards proselytizing and conspiracy theories, which some people fear gives some website visitors (especially those less familar with the IMC concept) the impression that the IMC website is filled with not-so-credible information. When there are many of these posts with a given time frame then they can take up a lot of space on the newswire on the front page, which has the potential to dilute the impact of the stories posted by local IMCistas, or give the impression that the IMC is mostly about conspiracy theories about the pope and aliens.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that "spammers" tend not to be local, and frequently don't leave e-mail addresses or they use aliases. This means that there is very little way for us to dialogue with them and reach some kind of cooperative solution. The fact that most spammers are not local and do not post information of specifically local interest or topics leads to the argument that people who have little interest, involvement or investment in our IMC or community are unfairly exploiting our resources. The fact that these "spammers" post the same message to many or all of the local IMC sites--often with no regard for local languages (see http://www.mexico.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1489)--only further demonstrates an apparent disregard for the volunteers who keep those local IMCs going.
When these posts stack up and move content produced locally off the front page newswire column, then it seems like local authors are being done a disservice as their work gets buried in the newswire. There is the fear that as the spamming problem worsens it will become a significant disincentive for local citizen-journalists to bother posting to the newswire, since such posts will just get buried anyway.
And yet the problem is not necessarily just with "spammers." A lot of "syndicated" or "republished" content from major progressive sources gets put on our newswire too. The names, like Molly Ivins and Ralph Nader, and sources, like commondreams.org, are more well-known and respected than the "spammers" but yet the postings nonetheless have a similar effect. They take up space that might otherwise be used for stories by common citizen-journalists who don't already have columns in national magazines.
As someone who frequently checks our website, I can say that I am often frustrated to see a sea of republished content of all stripes and little or no local stories. While I can see the value in spreading well-written progressive content around the web, frankly I can go to commondreams myself to see their articles. But where else can I go to see the grassroots news for Champaign-Urbana?
Our Present Solution -- Not so Effective:
Right now we primarily deal with the big problem cases -- those "spammers" who post very frequently and sometimes very offensively. The only thing we can do is either "hide" their posts in a hidden section of the newswire, or delete them altogether. Appropriately, these tactics are reserved for only the most blatant abuses, and still many folks are reticent to apply them. The debate over this approach brings up very core and controversial issues of censorship and control, cooperation and sharing, and democracy. I don't doubt that the very semantics of it -- the HIDING of posts sure sounds like censorship-- adds fuel to the fire.
And yet, the problem is barely solved at all. Check the newswire on the front page right now and tell me how many stories you can identify that seem to have anything to do with Urbana, or even Illinois, or are by identifiably local authors. At this moment I count 4 out of 20 -- just 20%.
But are we to hide the other 16 posts? Gosh, I hope not.
A Possible Solution -- Categorization:
I've given a lot of thought about this problem lately and how it might be tackled. I've tried to listen hard to the discussions had in the Steering Group about it, and pay close attention to the objections raised against "hiding" posts. Talking with Ellen I think we've come up with a simple system that might help make the site more usable and yet limit how much anyone needs to be hidden.
If you look at the Philly IMC you'll see that there are two newswires on the right hand side of the page. One is labeled "top news" and the other is labeled "top editorials," which arguably makes it a little easier to find what you're looking for. I don't actually recommend using these two categories. There are very legitimate disagreements and debates over what constitutes "news" vs. "editorials," or whether there in fact is a difference between them, and if the IMC mov't wants to perpetuate this division. I personally don't think we have much to gain by having this debate.
However, I do strongly recommend the use of categories. I think we can use categories that get at the heart of the problems cites. I'm not talking about subject categories like "Arts," "Politics" or "Entertainment." Rather, if we look at the content which we want to somehow privilege it has less to do with the specific content, but rather how it arrives at our site. It's about local vs.not-local, original vs. republished. It's not mere "local news," but stories that are posted by people in our community -- especially stories that wouldn't gain nearly so much exposure without the U-C IMC website.
So, instead of hiding posts, what if we had two newswires, each with its own space on the front page, with the amount of space defined by priority. To start, I suggest the headings to be "stories from our community" and "republished stories" -- I'd argue that most of the non-local content is actually republished, either from other sites, or from other IMCs (though this could stand testing). There are currently 20 spaces for stories on the front page. As a matter of prioirty I'd give 15 to "community" stories and 5 to republished stories. Of course anyone interested in exploring either category further could click through to the appropriate newswire that would take up the whole page.
We could add categories from there, though I'd argue for keeping the number of categories under five, since with more than that things get more complex rather than simpler. I'd add two categories: "from the IMC network" and "uncategorized." the "IMC network" category is for stuff that gets posted by members of other IMCs (who identify themselves as such) or get posted by one of the global collectives (such as the "IMC Newsblast" collective). I think these posts deserve some priority over content from commondreams or Gary Larrabee, but below local stuff. The uncategorized category is exactly that -- some items won't clearly be from the community, but aren't clearly anything else, either. With these four categories I'd argue for the following space on the front page: 12 slots for "community," and 2 each for the others, each with their own full newswire that one can click to.
How to Categorize?
The Philly IMC solves this problem by requiring all posts to be moderated before appearing on the newswire. Personally, I oppose this "gatekeeper" approach. The immediate posting of stories is the real strength of the newswire, especially during big news events like the FTAA or SOA. Instead, I think the poster should be asked to categorize her story when she posts it. While I'm certain not everyone will comply, I'd hope that a majority of users would be respectful.
But given that some mistakes will be made and that a small few posters will be purposely misleading, there should also be some "editing" of the site by IMC volunteers who can put stories into appropriate categories. This might even be to a particular poster's advantage if she selected "uncategorized" but a reviewer thinks it's a "community" post.
Yes, this would be a little more work than is currently expended on the website (mostly by me), but it also opens up an opportunity for more people to have a hand in it, which can only benefit the IMC and be more consistent with the way we want to do things. I also think the result would be worth it.
Under this approach a possible "spammer" can still post to our website, but he has to fight for space with the likes of Molly Ivins and "Between the Lines," but doesn't take away valuable front page space from Peter Miller. If a particular spammer is a real problem we still have our Appropriate Use policy to back us up. And still, good republished content can still make it onto our site, exposing our visitors to progressive voices that they might not have read--how much of the local population do you think has never even heard of The Progressive?
Importantly, website visitors will be immediately exposed to more of the stories and content that WE spend most of our time and effort to producing and facilitating -- stories by local citizen-journalists covering the events, ideas and thoughts that got left out at the News-Gazzette, Daily Illini, WCIA, etc, etc. Can you think of a better incentive to a new citizen-reporter than to see your story immediately published and STAY THERE, in good company with other citizen-journalists' stories?
What To Do?
These are all suggestions--an outline for a plan, but not a full proposal. There needs to be thoughtful inclusive discussion about the future of the U-C IMC website.
For better or worse our website was put on line with little discussion or debate about how it should run, what it's goals are, and such. We've been lucky in that it actually runs pretty well and have had few controversies over it, especially compared to other IMCs. But as more apparent problems face us we do need to be more decisive in determining the site's future.
I think this discussion is too important to simply be left to the Steering Group. Minimally it should be opened up to the entire IMC membership... and beyond. We all need to think about how openness and democracy can be sustained in our little corner of cyberspace if we actually expect it to be there.
The IMC-Tech group will attempt to foster discussion, deliberation and debate on this, but cannot and should not be singularly responsible for the outcome. We need thoughts and ideas for how this should happen. Please consider this my invitation to anyone who cares to contribute.
|
Comments
|
Why not generate more local content? |
by A UC-IMC occasional contributor
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2002
|
|
This proposal seems like a stopgap designed to deal with spamming of the wire, and is useful in that regard. But the real dilemma here is how to increase local content? (and all that implies in terms of outreach and organizing.) At this point the ratio and frequency of local stories vis a vis reposts doesn't raise undue concern about local contributors being knocked off the wire. |
|
LOCAL IMCs |
by D9
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2002
|
|
Would it be too much trouble to ask nearby (nearby to be defined) IMCs to pick what they believe is their most important posts for the day and then give them priority on this site to post above spammers who are outside the "defined IMC" area? Also, would it be possible to give priority to "locals" to respond to posted stories? |
|
Thanks for comments -- my responses |
by Paul R.
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2002
|
To "occasional contributor:"
I agree that having more local content is the real goal, yet I do think that having a newswire full of stuff from nat'l writers and spammers is a disincentive for new writers to post, even if it isn't a disincentive for you or me. I have had people tell me that they are sometimes put off by the content on the newswire -- when I tell them that it's just a few posts, I've been told back, "it doesn't seem that way."
I also agree that outreach and organizing is a key element. I'd really like to hear some suggestions for doing this. Our volunteers are already pretty tapped -- how might be get such an effort going?
To D9:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by giving posts prioirity. If you mean moving them up in the newswire, that's not really possible under the current software. Currently we feature some of the most notable local content in the center column, usually about once a week.
Otherwise I think my idea of categorizing local posts into their own newswire and giving it the highest priority on the front page would essentially achieve that priority objective.
However, I don't think we could give priority to locals to respond -- unless somehow we used a similar category system and asked people to select themselves as locals. Do you perceive that locals are also edged out in commenting on stories? This isn't something I'd yet noticed.
Thanks for all your comments. I'd like to read more. This is YOUR newswire and you make it what it is by participating! |
|
Real News On A Real Newswire |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2002
|
This proposal is a good start and, with some fine-tuning, it can serve to deal with some persistent problems. I support it in general with a few suggestions for modification. Then I have some other comments which I think are important to think about in the context of this discussion.
Any split in the Newswires should be between Local and National News. If it were up to me, a third category for IMC network spam (it’s advertising, pure and simple, already supposedly prohibited, although we can’t seem to enforce this presently) and generally wacky theories (it’s named the Newswire, and NOT the Free Speech Chat Room for a reason; news is supposed to be there, not fanciful speculation-more below on this) would be entirely appropriate. Since we have a hard time doing what is appropriate for this stuff under the existing policies, sending it to the Hidden Files, maybe this category would give us another option. Or it might just give us something else to argue over, so this is just a suggestion.
I also suggest that the split between Local and National Newswires should be 50/50. It is important that fresh material appear daily to get people in the habit of visiting us daily, whether it is local or other news. More on this later.
As for what constitutes Local News, it needn’t necessarily be limited to Local News, but also could include local writers writing about national issues. We wouldn’t necessarily need names or addresses to recognize a local author, as a recognized pseudonym would work just as well. If someone was misclassified out of Local and can prove somehow there is a local tie, then they could be moved back. No harm, no foul anyway, since they’d still be on the Newswire. I have no problem with extending this privilege to relevant material and authors from regional IMCs, as another commenter inquired.
As for the National Newswire, it would be a good place to put the stories that people like to repost, including those columnists that we have regular arrangements with. Perhaps I should say a bit more about this here, as I think there has been some misunderstanding about how certain columnists appear regularly here and what the diffrences are between that and IMC network spam.
Back when we were still having our formative meetings, I offered to take on the task of coordinating having people who we have ties with to do regular columns for the U-C IMC. One of the reasons this came up was because people had concerns about the quality of our IMC, because some of the problems that have since nearly overwhelmed the global Newswire were already becoming apparent on it then. People spoke out strongly in favor of a quality Newswire and it was thought this was one way to have it. I never remember anyone speaking out in favor of abandoning this commitment to quality and credibility. I am on the mailing lists of people like Mark Weisbrot and post their stuff here regularly by specific arrangement in order to help fulfill the commitment we made to having quality alternative opinions available to our readers. Others I have picked up based on fair use and specific local interest.
Paul made this comment which I believe somewhat mis-states the situation with the regular appearance of these columnists:
"And yet the problem is not necessarily just with "spammers." A lot of "syndicated" or "republished" content from major progressive sources gets put on our newswire too. The names, like Molly Ivins and Ralph Nader, and sources, like commondreams.org, are more well-known and respected than the "spammers" but yet the postings nonetheless have a similar effect. They take up space that might otherwise be used for stories by common citizen-journalists who don't already have columns in national magazines."
I’m unsure what the "similar effect" of Molly and Ralph is to such people as Robert Meade and Gary Larrabee. Psychotic rants and pitiless preaching are substantially different cases from the behavior of reasonable discourse. To say that there is no difference is to abandon any critical analysis. To some this may constitute a "free speech" issue, but I hasten to add that free speech is only one of many criteria that IMC has to address in our mission. Those who spam unwelcome messages to every IMC under the sun, as Paul noted, have a significantly and recognizably different relationship to IMC than local people reposting single articles to our IMC that they KNOW is of interest to others in OUR community.
It should be noted that the Steering group has reminded local journalists numerous times that they should post everything they write for IMC on the Newswire one way or another. This is not a criticism, but a reminder that a lot falls through the cracks in the local news department. We do have a link on the frontpage now to the Public i website, but couldn’t individual stories be taken and periodically posted on the Newswire, with a link back to the Public i website to get more attention drawn to it? The Newshour has been on the air regularly now at WEFT for a year, but we rarely see anything from it on the Newswire. I know that we still don’t have the MP3 problem on the server solved and I’m not suggesting that people type up anything separate specifically to post, but I know that a lot of it is scripted and it would take little time to post that to the Newswire. Peter Miller should be cited here for his dedication in posting the Headlines from the Illinois Labor Hour regularly as an example of what could be done. In any case, a perceived lack of local news has little to do with what is causing the controversies about Newswire editorial policy
I want to point out the tendency by some to set up the false dichotomy between local and national news (and the relative merits of each is one) which is not really helpful in using to judge the appropriateness of Newswire material. You don’t necessarily have more local news if you have less national. Most media outlets do not confine themselves to just local news. We need national and international news on our IMC in order to serve as a viable alternative news source. The entire Indymedia movement is part and parcel of the international anti-corporate globalization movement that has as it’s fundamental belief that one should "think globally, act locally." What do we have to think globally about if we discourage the posting of relevant global material here?
We also hope that the public reads the website and learns where to find alternative news sources. We build a stronger movement by making regular connections to stories found at places like Commondreams and other regularly featured websites. Sure all you smug activists may know about this stuff, but unless you keep it out there for the public to see, many people will never find it.
To somehow downgrade the alternative approach to national news that we have had on the Newswire will only make our IMC a less viable alternative to the dominant media. There is no time when this is more crucial than in wartime.
National and international news is an inherent part of our local Newswire. In part, this is because our local dominant media does such a lousy job of reporting on this news. Our website HAS to address these deficiencies or we would be failing our audience and our mission. That means that we sometimes need to rely on material that could be said to be "syndicated", but which is of a decidedly different point of view than what one finds in the News-Gazette. When I repost such material, I try to provide some introduction in the summary that explains what the context of the article is that makes it of local interest, if it isn’t already obvious.
Sometimes with things which have been intentionally overlooked in the local media, our offering it is in direct defiance of those who wish to not have the people of Champaign County exposed to it. That’s why Molly Ivins has been appearing regularly. The News-Gazette used to offer her regularly. There have even been letters to the editor printed in it from people saying how they missed her contrasting view on the N-G editorial page, which has become the all-Fox-News-all-the-time page since Sept. 11. A number of nationally syndicated anti-war columns have also appeared on our Newswire that never stand a chance of being printed in the N-G. This material is out there and people want it. Should it not be on U-C IMC just because it’s not local enough for a few people or because the author has some limited national distribution already, but not locally? Why shouldn’t we specifically publish material that run counter to how the N-G sees things, even if it isn’t all produced locally?
It has already been mentioned by one commenter above that they didn’t see what the big deal is in the local versus national controversy, based on what they see on the Newswire. This is a good point. Look at the first two pages on the Newswire, which are the ones that are displayed on the U-C IMC frontpage. There is a good mix there of both and it extends over four days. Others have commented that this seems to be a good average for the amount of time to have stories on appear on the frontpage.
We have had a number of commenters that drop by, and from local folks also, mention how much they enjoy our frontpage compared to many IMC Newswires which have been overcome by a combination of little local news and IMC network spam. Another very important reason why our IMC has a good reputation is that there is something new on a daily basis. That keeps people coming back to see what’s new. Having national news and columnists that are under-represented in other local media is one way to keep the Newswire fresh and encourage regular use of it.
Another factor in considering the proper balance between free speech and dealing with inappropriate material on the Newswire is the fact that we are one of the few brick-and-mortar IMCs. Our Newswire and website is the first contact many people have with us. Who we might be scaring away has to be a consideration in making our decisions on what is appropriate editorial policy on the Newswire. People may or may not feel comfortable visiting the IMC or participating based on what we publish online, far more than having their material appear next to a nationally known writer being an intimidating factor, which is what Paul may have been getting at in his comment that I quoted. Too much reactionary crap can have far-reaching repercussions in community support and involvement and will override any points we will earn with the community from having a strict absolutist view of what constitutes "free speech" by leaving up material that clearly violates any semblance of being "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."
A wide range of opinions should be on our Newswire. Material which is clearly inappropriate should still not be on our Newswire. We should not have to devote every Steering group meeting to dealing with people who are clear-cut and repetitive violators of our published policies, claiming that we are somehow on a slippery slope to total censorship by enforcing our own previously agreed-to policies, wringing our hands about somehow possibly denying "free speech" to someone who has their own website and who regularly spams every IMC with their material. These folks are just another version of the dominant media, seeking to drown out reasonable voices with their self-interested priorities. Rupert Murdoch and Gary Larrabee are really no different, except in the relative scale of their resources. We own neither of them anything on our Newswire.
Just to note for the record that my objections to the authors I’ve mentioned specifically and others I have not mentioned is, except in rare cases, not about any specific article. It is about their repeated posting of material that clearly is at cross-purposes with what IMC stands for across the entire IMC network. This is a clear and specific violation of IMC policy. We have a responsibility to do our part in discouraging such behavior by making it non-productive for those who repeatedly engage in it by sending such material to the Hidden Files area. Try this link for further on IMC policy regarding this:
http://process.indymedia.org/letter_to_spammers.php3
Setting up separate Newswires should NOT be regarded as a reason to let anyone posting anything appear on the proposed National Newswire. If we want a totally boundless discussion, let’s set up a link to a separate Newswire and call it something different, like "Anything Goes" (see my proposal above for the third Newswire just for such material). Otherwise, let’s all agree that the Newswire really is about something that resembles news. Preaching and "prophecy", psychotic rants, UFO theories and racist and other inappropriate material should not have any place on what we call a Newswire unless we are abandoning all of our previously expressed commitment to having a quality Newswire, Local or National.
Finally, for those who still feel that IMC is about nothing but "free speech", please read this so that we are really all at least somewhere on the same page when we try to have a discussion about IMC editorial policy:
http://process.indymedia.org/on_censorship_and_free_speech.php3
I greatly respect a dedication to a diverse website and free speech. But some people assume that the two are inseparable. I would argue that many doomsday preachers and crypto-fascists that repeatedly pollute IMC Newswires as a matter of policy need to be shuffled into the Hidden Files. It is not a matter of their free speech, but of our editorial integrity.
|
|
I've been thinking about this for a while... |
by Michael Feltes
mfeltes (nospam) gmx.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2002
|
|
but since I'm not a techie, I didn't want to make it a cause if I was unable to follow through on its implementation. It is a singularly excellent idea and I support it wholeheartedly. |
|
BS |
by Truth
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2002
|
So what you're ~really~ saying is, you oppose free speech.
Pretty hypocritical if you ask me |
|
Free Speech and Independent Journalism |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2002
|
It is a common confusion for people to equate free speech and independent journalism. These are complimentary, but not always congruent concepts. Those who publish have a right to decide what is appropriate to appear in their publication that does not always agree with the correspondent's view of what they wish to write about. Writing and publishing are interrelated. Writers have certain rights, but the body that publishes their work also retains certain rights. The assertion of some absolute right of writers to publish overlooks the rights of those who provide the resources to publish to retain certain discretionary rights over what will appear in their publication.
This means that those who write do not have a unrestricted right to demand that those who publish see everything exactly they way they do. Those who publish do not always have articles in agreement with their views. There is an interaction between the two which is not always congruent, one which requires that both sides ultimately see less in print than what they view as ideal.
To place writing in the superior position means that there is no reason to take any other circumstances into account when a work is published than what the writer intends. It would mean that there would be no need for any kind of editorial policy at all for IMCs, but one look at any IMC webpage shows that this is far from the case. To do otherwise seperates responsibility from accountability. In reality, the world is a place where both sides must compromise, where the publisher is not a slave to the writer. The only writer who publishes exactly what they wish is one that owns the press.
This is not the case with IMC, where the press is owned collectively and is specifically subject to the decision making process of the group. To assert that a writer always has a superior and absolute claim to publication means that the group has no right to decide what is appropriate in what is communicated via their resources. This is never the case when one looks honestly at the concerns of the real world, but is solely restricted to ideal cases where the consequences of decisions are often disguised by appeals to the ideal, not the real world.
A public press such as the IMC is thus subject to the concerns of the many individuals involved and cannot guarantee any individual writer a place at the table, only a fair hearing whether or not that place is worthy of the resources required. There will always be those who must seek out some other venue because what they propose is beyond the context of the particular publication. This is nothing new at IMCs and it is still suggested that those who assert some unrestricted right to the commons take the time to make themselves familiar with the arguments made at this link: http://process.indymedia.org/on_censorship_and_free_speech.php3
The specific IMC collective is the final determinant of what is acceptable on any individual Newswire. There is NO requirement that the standard be unrestricted free speech. To say that the standard of what that should be may ONLY be absolutely unrestricted "free speech" is dependent on such a collective specifically adopted such a policy specifically at variance with normal IMC practice and simply does not take into account all the factors involved in the right to make editorial decisions that every IMC collectives retains, over and above the rights of any individual author. |
|
Another Misunderstanding |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2002
|
There is also another misunderstanding that often occurs with "free speech" and private organizations like IMCs. IMCs are NOT governmental bodies. If they find material inappropriate for publication, they do NOT have the power to impose ANY other restriction on an author.
An IMC does not even have the power to restrict publication by that author at any other IMC. Said author is completely free to seek other venues in which to publish their work. Any decision to deny the right to publish by that individual is thus NOT a denial of the right to free speech to that individual in any way, shape, or form. They are completely free to publish in any other publication at any time without any restriction by the IMC making such a decision. |
|
To 'Truth' |
by Paul R.
paul-imc (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2002
|
It's easy to sit back and make accusations about censorship or hypocrisy, but since you provide no more analysis or explanation of your views on the subject, you really don't further the discussion, nor provide an avenue to reach an agreement.
I'm not dismissing your comment, but you don't give much to back it up. While you have the right to be anonymous on this forum, without also proving more explanation your anonymity works against you rather than for you. If perhaps you revealed yourself to be someone who posts regularly to this forum, lends her/his hard work to maintaining it, or has otherwise contributed to the cause of free speech, then perhaps your words would carry greater weight. But as it is, you sound like a heckler -- an arguer with no argument -- a troller for flames.
Rather than simply call names, how about making contributions towards betterment of the Newswire, or reasoned arguments for maintaing the status quo? |
|
