|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
of "file hells", "spammers" and other methods of censorship |
Current rating: 0 |
by someone who wants to solve the problem, belie
(No verified email address) |
08 Oct 2001
Modified: 14 Oct 2001 |
|
This is an important article/response to what appears to be the beginnings of censorship in the smaller IMC communities. Note that this article doesn't take a side in either camp, yet seeks to get to the bottom of the situation, and gifts that are being ignored or missed. |
This topic comes from a post I composed in another form at the Ohio Valley IMC site. This is very different, though I began with the idea of simply making an intro to my other post...argh...hehe
"ML" and others seem to be fine with the idea of swallowing the problem of those who "spam" without careful thought as to the pros and cons of that manuver. They apparently don't have a problem with using manipulative means, like giving alleged "spammers" punishment. Is this the methodology of the kind of independent media we wish to perpetrate? Is it okay to abandon our state principles of no censorship because of one person?
Notably, the international IMCs (which I've been able to read) have done a pretty damn excellent job of upholding stated principles of an independent media. So I'm not seeking to attack this community. I do seek to warn you.
There's a person (who is apparently deaf) who is allegedly flooding various IMCs with "off-topic" posts [( jeez, I'm starting to re-write this entire article! Well, at least hopefully it will be shorter than my first draft...)] and to make matters allegedly worse, he's bringing up a topic which seems to scald certain guardians of various IMC projects.
The guy, being called "Bobby", seems to me to be more of a uncritical soldier-type of right-wing emotionally potent oversimplifications than anything else. Firstly, he equates all Jews with the Zionists; that's like equating all Christians with the most extreme fundamentalists. But Robert ("Bobby") doesn't seem to see that. He's right where right-wing propaganda wants his type to be: hyped-up to the point of hysteria, and out giving shit to leftists...
Yet, what good will this soldiering do him, and all the others fooled into hating *all Jews* (or any other entire group for that matter)? Not much. That's why I say he's a dupe of right-wing propaganda.
What gets me is that all y'all leftists so easily get up on your high horses. You don't take the bullish soldier by his horns and seek to educate him, one human being to another.
I don't get this situation. Most of you claim to want to gain "peace and justice" but only if people seem to bow down, almost religiously, to the Way such may be gone about.
Am I missing something? I'd like to believe I'm missing something. Hope you'll inform me if I am.
Yes, let's watch the infighting and the problem of having our projects steered away from their "main focus" (independent media, goes left-wing hype, anyway); but at the same time, let's not compromise our principles everytime some individual is being too consistent for our "independent" tastes. How different is your "editing" behavior from CNN or FOX, when it comes to consistent dissent? Doesn't look too different to me!
Figured it had to come to this eventually. |
Comments
|
Dissent or Just Interested in Crap? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
I think it is important to realize that our IMC tolerated Bobby Meade's paranoid, psychotic ravings for quite some time. You'll have no luck comminucating with him, because his interest is in simply having a place to irritate people. He had no point to make, except to to see how much crap people are willing to put up with before pulling his plug. This is obvious from the wandering, contradictory statements that were posted. Did he actually have a position on anything? Hard to tell, because nothing much he wrote made sense.
CNN and Fox? He wouldn't have even got past the receptionist before someone called the cops and had him returned to a rubber room and/or his government handlers.
Since IMC is an open publishing system, a certain amount of "noise" has to be accepted. Eventually, there are limits. Whether Bobby is in fact, a raving mentally-ill flake, is a point that could be called into question. He certainly demonstarted last night that he is capable of is of acting in ways that seemingly belie his public persona when he flooded the Newswire with articles of a type whichhave not previously appeared here. There are distinct signs that "Bobby" is actually connected to others which typically flood global IMC with questionable posts. The nature of these actions indicate that it may not actually be a few off-topic posters, but rather a campaign orchestrated to undermine IMC credibility during a time of crisis.
Is this a sign of government covert media operations? Could be. It could also be connected to the threatening phone calls that our IMC has been receiving since Sept. 11. There are many in our society who believe that it proves their patiotism to engage in such childish and reprehensible, not to mention un-American, behavior. Whoever they are, they should know that IMCs, for all their open and tolerant nature, will defend themselves from such nonsense. Allowing such behavior to go unchecked only undermines the IMC for the use of regular psoters and readers. We regret such actions, but we will also not allow the forces of repression or simple madness to make the IMC unusable.
I hope this addresses your concerns. |
|
Censorship vs. Editing |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
One additional point.
You seem to have the same problem as many others, confusing censorship with editing. There are substantial differences between the two concepts that are important to understand. It is not even within our power to censor "Bobby". He is free to post his crap anywhere he pleases still, just not any longer here at U-C IMC. We have NOT silenced him, just decided that he no longer will be tolerated for his racist, anti-semetic views, which were not even communicated in a rational form. Editing is a different matter and is ultimately the perogative of the IMC collective. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to come to meetings and argue your point.
We consider that continued use of the Newswire to spread such views would reflect far worse on the IMC than the unfortunate need to restrict his use of the IMC. This decision took us two months and his escalating irrational behavior to finally come to the decision that we made. He had plenty of opportunity to get his point across and there has been nothing new in his stuff, except becoming even more vile, recently.
Editing is a different matter than censorship and is ultimately the perogative of the IMC collective. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to come to meetings and argue your point.
Tolerance has its limits. Bobby found those limits. |
|
Never Cared About Bobby... |
by Frank
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
|
As a reader of the newswire, I never paid much attention to Bobby before the debate began. I opened one of his posts once, saw the nature of the content, quickly dismissed it as something that didn't interest me, and ignored any further posts by the individual. The term "raving mentally ill flake" seems a bit belittling and offensive to anyone with a real medical condition. While I'm no "patriot" or great supporter of mainstream media (which is why I read news here and at other more progressive sites), I'd like to believe that most of the "official" powers that be are more concerned with things like anthrax right now than they are with composing epic rants and posing as a persona like Bobby in order to infiltrate and undermine the CU IMC, or the IMC system in general. Perhaps I'm simply too hopeful and dumb. |
|
When does the noise take over? |
by Paul Riismandel
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
As a member of the U-C IMC steering group which currently is respsonsible for making any decisions about "editing" the newswire I want to invite anyone and everyone who cares about the IMC Newswire to attend our meetings and speak up. By our own rules anyone who attends has a right to be heard and counted in decision making. We make decision by consensus of *everyone* who attends. We meet Sundays at noon at the U-C IMC -- address is on the front page.
I, myself, am very reticent to hide posts to the Newswire. But yesterday I watched several well-written and reported stories of local news get moved off the front page by a whole slew of posts that barely made sense, were also posted to many other IMCs, and of little interest to our local community, which we serve first.
Since a large percentage of our viewers never go past the front page articles, if all they were to see is rambling conspiracy rants, they might well leave believing that's all the IMC is really about. They would also miss news about actual events and happenings in their own communities.
That would be a real loss, and one that's hard to repair.
The IMC Newswire is a commons, which means that all who use it have an obligation to use it responsibly if it is to remain a useful resource for everyone. I want to emphasize the word "useful," since if a few posters monopolize it with their rants and raves, then it is not very useful. It also then becomes increasingly useless as fewer and fewer people find anything that is useful to them and quit visiting or posting. This is a process that has ruined countless public forums on the Internet -- Usenet perhaps being the most clear example.
Anyone who has their posts hidden only has it happen when they refuse to respect other peoples' right to use the newswire, attempting to monopolize it, or use it for purposes for which it is not intended (such as for commercial or retail purposes).
These posts are neither edited or deleted. They are moved off the main newswire, and can be accessed on the "hidden posts" page: http://urbana.indymedia.org/display.php3?group=webcast&led=y
Shortly, there will be link and explanation about this posted to the front page, so that anyone who wants to see what has been moved may do so. That is not censorship.
If you don't live in the immediate area but you still care enough about the U-C IMC newswire to participate, you can join our IMC mailing lists and take part in our on-line discussions on this and other issues.
The IMCs are about as open as it gets. But that openness does not mean that we accept irresponsible action, nor destructive, selfish use of the resources that we work very hard to maintain. We welcome everyone's participation, but you have to cooperate in order for that participation to be constructive and meaningful. |
|
Thank you... |
by Frank
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
|
I see what you mean, Paul, about how this conversation has seemingly taken over the newswire at present (or at least yesterday). I had never commented before, and this was the first thing that inspired me to do so. I would probably lose interest in the newswire if it consisted mostly of conversations like this. I've never attended a meeting due to many other commitments, but respect and appreciate the difficult job that you've undertaken. Thank you. |
|
To Loser of "ML": "Messiah of Losers" |
by Bobby
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "somebody": Leave the posts alone! Don't read them! What happened to Id=2446, the poem for your "Messiah"? Do you think that makes them men to steal such stuff from the public? Off-topic? What is on topic? Mainstream media drivel? Zionist pro-gay drivelf? You have taken the antics of the gay revolution to the newswire and we want you to identify yourselves. You should not be able to exercise any authority from your "closet", and anyone who wants to post should be able to. This is on topic because it is about the end of all things, and the end has been made known from the beginning. Now put that poem back in the listings, or you will get the updated version of it soon. Hasta luego, adios. Bob |
|
A solution for the newswire? |
by jay
jrmorris (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
I haven't been to the news meetings at the IMC, BUT I am guessing that the way this website works is that the news items that end up in the centre part of the website are the articles of main interest, and the newswire is sort of a bulletin board where people (like me), who are too lazy or busy to come to the news meetings, can post their thoughts/observations/news (as well as being a place for more immediate, smaller news posts). Both parts of the website are completely open to the community (in line with the main purpose of the IMC), but the centre part is devoted to news that the committee has discussed (like I said, I haven't been to the meetings, so this is my guess as to how it works). Keeping the 'noise' from taking over the newswire is possibly not something we really shouldn't worry about. Maybe the general public (i.e., community members like me, who don't attend news meetings) should have access to this.
Here's the solution part. Maybe these folks shouldn't have access to the centre part of the site (I don't think they do anyway). What if we actually updated the centre part more often, with things that are important to community members who show up to the meetings, and we de-emphasize the newswire, possibly by renaming it to be a bulletin board? This way, we are making it more implicitly clear to readers that these are not the views of the IMC, while we continue to give people a place to voice their opinions.
Bobby still rants, IMC is still excellent news, and we don't have any issues of censorship. The newswire is already a bulletin board system, as is. The solution to our present problem is just some creative restructuring/renaming.
We are here FOR the community. Community members can sometimes be complete idiots. People understand this concept on a bulletin board, more than they do on a newswire.
(alternatively, there could be a bulletin board for everyone to use, and a newswire for only IMC members to use)
jay |
|
Slashdot's solution |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
|
slashdot.org has a big problem with noise, and the way they've solved it is kind of clever. News items are moderated, and responses are not. The noise problem comes in when discussions in the response sections go off-topic. The solution is that readers can rate responses in the response sections, and can also choose to exclude from their viewing responses that rate below a certain threshold. |
|
response to Jay's and Joe's ideas |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
Right now there is one sole center of page editor ("features editor"): me. Unfortunately, editing the front page features requires a little unix skill and so far I haven't had luck finding anyone to help out on a regular committed basis. Thus, weekly is all that I can afford timewise. It's not hard to do, but not even close to as simple as posting to the Newswire.
I think the features would have to be updated daily if it were to be a sufficient alternative to spam postings in the newswire. I'm glad to share the load.
With regard to the Slashdot model -- believe me, it has been discussed. The first problem with Slashdot is that it requires moderation for anything to be posted in the first place. Secondly, the article rating system has a tendency to rate down articles that aren't only off-topic or stupid, but also articles which counter the dominant ideological line. Neither of these attributes is particularly well suited to Indymedia.
It is far and away preferable to me to have to remove inappropriate posts after they're posted rather than to hold up good posts (which are still the majority) until they can be reviewed.
While the spam quotient has increased quite a bit in the last week, I don't think we're yet in the middle of an epidemic. If this sort of bullshit continues for months, then perhaps then we really need to consider alternative methods--though I'd really hate to have to.
In general, it should not be necessary for an editor to cherrypick articles for features amongst a sea of "noise" in order for the site to be useful. The way the model is supposed to work is that all is available for folks to see and to choose from, with features being a way to call attention to things that the IMC focuses on. But I daresay that most people are not loooking for the kind of "noise" we see from Mr. Deaf Messenger, and if they are, well, then, I'd rather quit. |
|
response to Jay's and Joe's ideas |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
Right now there is one sole center of page editor ("features editor"): me. Unfortunately, editing the front page features requires a little unix skill and so far I haven't had luck finding anyone to help out on a regular committed basis. Thus, weekly is all that I can afford timewise. It's not hard to do, but not even close to as simple as posting to the Newswire.
I think the features would have to be updated daily if it were to be a sufficient alternative to spam postings in the newswire. I'm glad to share the load.
With regard to the Slashdot model -- believe me, it has been discussed. The first problem with Slashdot is that it requires moderation for anything to be posted in the first place. Secondly, the article rating system has a tendency to rate down articles that aren't only off-topic or stupid, but also articles which counter the dominant ideological line. Neither of these attributes is particularly well suited to Indymedia.
It is far and away preferable to me to have to remove inappropriate posts after they're posted rather than to hold up good posts (which are still the majority) until they can be reviewed.
While the spam quotient has increased quite a bit in the last week, I don't think we're yet in the middle of an epidemic. If this sort of bullshit continues for months, then perhaps then we really need to consider alternative methods--though I'd really hate to have to.
In general, it should not be necessary for an editor to cherrypick articles for features amongst a sea of "noise" in order for the site to be useful. The way the model is supposed to work is that all is available for folks to see and to choose from, with features being a way to call attention to things that the IMC focuses on. But I daresay that most people are not loooking for the kind of "noise" we see from Mr. Deaf Messenger, and if they are, well, then, I'd rather quit. |
|
On the nature of Spam |
by Mulberry Sellers
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2001
|
It's worth considering what the term "Spam", as shorthand for unacceptable posting behavior, has come to mean on another sort of open Internet forum- Usenet.
Excessive cross-posting is one meaning, i.e., posting the same article to a large number of newsgroups, especially where it has no perceptible relevance to the particular group.
(our Bobby has certainly engaged in this, blitzing every IMC he can access with copies of the same article.)
Another nasty behavior which has come under the rubric "Spam" is excessivly re-posting the same article, or one essentially the same, to one group.
(I've seen this done on IMC as well. One night a couple of weeks ago, while browsing the various IMC sites I dropped in on the Madison one, and found the entire newswire sidebar filled with multiple posts of one of Bobby's rants. This, of course, had pushed every other article clean off the front page.)
What's at issue really isn't the content, it's the behavior. Posting the same article over and over again in an effort to dominate the newswire by brute force can't be accepted, lest it succeed and render the newswire utterly useless.
Cross-posting the same thing to every IMC available should also be considered unacceptable. If readers come to expect their local IMC to be full of stuff they can find on any other randomly selected IMC, in place of news of genuine local interest, then what reason have they to continue reading their local?
This isn't about censoring viewpoints, it's about discouraging obnoxious NetLoon behavior which would, in other fora, get the perpetrator ed in short order.
At least Indymedia has so far not been subjected to the kind of commercial Spam which has been such a plague on Usenet. |
|
thanks Mulberry |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Oct 2001
|
I appreciate your lending a little bit more context to this discussion. The issue of behavior is one I've been raising and is key to the U-C IMC's website use policy which I just got posted up (see http://urbana.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2544&group=webcast)
As I've said too many times, censorship is an easily abused word -- so absued that it nearly loses its meaning.
The problem (and strength) of the 'net is that folks like "bobby" never have to meet face-to-face the people who work hard to keep forums like the IMCs running. He never has to justify to them while looking them in the eye why he has a right to exploit their labor.
In the end, that's what "spamming" behavior is: exploitation -- taking advantage of others' good will.
If we've learned anything over the course of a few hundred years, it's that it's easier to exploit someone when you don't even have to see her face.
If such exploitation is what such so-called "anti-censors" want to either tolerate or encourage, then they are welcome to take my place on the U-C IMC Tech Group and Steering Group. Please forgive me if I prefer my work not be exploited. |
|
Liars, Thieves, and More 2nd Attempt Here |
by bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear Criminal Ones; FIRST ATTEMPT TO POST THIS COMMENT HERE FAILED:::::": You are trying to justify lying, stealing, and more by professing that your goal of establishing a Zionist pro-gay newswire overrides any other use of this site. Lets review my experience on this site. "Love and Foolishness", which contains some of the funniest and most serious writing that I have done was stolen from this site twice at Ids=1566 & 1609. "Modus Operandi of Lawlessness" Id=1608 was stolen probably so your tribe could continue to murder innocent people who are not opposing them. I was able to make post with "Chemical Modus II" Id=1630; but only by posting the text of the article in the comment section. I was then able to make post with "Love and Foolishness" under the title, "How Foolish Are You?" Id=1855, which was 200 spaces higher than the current numbers at the time; and that may be a trap for those who tried to access it. Then "Songs for Mental Health" Id=1650 was stolen. Then I was able to make post with "Bush Daddy Delusions" Id=1664; but only by posting the text in the comment section. I then posted "Israel, A Kingdom That Cannot Be Shaken" Id=1730 and "Asbestoes, Asthma, and Your Rattling Last Breaths" Id=1770. In September I started with the "Messiah.." Id=1887 article and the "Columbine Lives" Id=1927 article. When the WTC disaster happened, I immediately moved with "Do Something! Quick!" Id=2026 and "Delusions of War" Id=2098, which were followed by "Trapped in the Devil's Bargain" Id=2169, the "Head of a Terrorist" Id=2240, and "Letter from Heaven" Id=2339. When I posted "Wipe That #$%&-eating Look Off Your Face" Id=2380, your compatriot "ML", who had continually been badgering me on U-C IMC, started a direct attempt to discredit me on all sites. This resulted in my posting "ML": Messiah of Losers" Id=2420, a "Poem for "ML"" Id=2446, and "Destiny of IMC's "Closeted" Collectives" Id=2471. I don't care how sweet and caring you profess to be, you and "ML" are engaged in criminal activity, stealing public property, so that people can be trifled with by you or others. Your hiding articles is actually a trap whereby people can be targetted for trying to access these articles. Although they can access them by Id#s by accessing any article, changing the Id=# in the address bar, and pressing "Enter"; you want them to contact you so that you can identify them. My writings are probably the best to ever be posted on IMC, and that is why you are targetting me. If you believe that you are in the right, print your name and address along with "ML"s and any others who support your lawlessness. "This can't go on! Lord knows you gotta change, baby!" Bob |
|
bobby is much worse than what you think |
by triple anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2001
|
bobby has been quite a pain for some time - look further into what he's been doing, and if you still feel certain IMC's are over-reacting feel free to boycott them...
In this case however there's more than meets the eye - much more...
I've been hanging around the main IMC site for awhile now plus have been in IRC chats with people going over this.. |
|
whoops I didn't see you'alls comments |
by triple anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2001
|
so now I see bobby's becoming *abusive* as well !
yes it really does boil down to how much people will take, if you do a search you'll see *hundreds* of posts - hell even I didn't know the full extent of his spamming on other IMC's until now..
Many IMC's are on a shoestring budget (like we are) and he's directly abusing and misusing these people's time energy & money.
and it does hurt the IMC's purpose to have all the news pushed off my spam..
He always used the excuse of the heavy traffic the main site gets causing delays due to the overloaded server to spam before, but this IMC is *fast* and there's no excuse for it here.
And now to top it off he's becoming abusive...
Insulting both the people he's taking advantage of AND many other readers. The library certaintly has a policy against that.
Also I wanted to point out I just saw a TV show where they mentioned a religious group that changes all it's members last names to 'israel" - he may be one of those people.. |
|
ML: noted your cross-posted |
by one who wishes to solve the problem/damn fool
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Oct 2001
|
(note: I must be a *damn fool*--thus my name-- for imagining that those in positions of unaccountable power can allow themselves to listen to serious critique in order to actually solve the challenges facing all of us)
ML, you cross-posted part of your "Dissent or Just Interested in Crap?" from the Cleveland IMC and possibly other pages on this site...I do see excerpts, anyway. So I'll respond with my original response to you here, as well, shortly...but first:
I wonder if the reason Robert Meade didn't respond to you (I noted you saying he leaves no email address, though he has repeatedly left his apparent home address) is more doing with your incapability to seek understanding, than actual cut and dry ignoring. Call my ideas/views "paranoid" and "psychotic" and I'd ignore you too.
Seems to me that he also has had many points to make, with his apparently very detailed quotes and citations from some version of the bible. You don't like them and/or him, it didn't make sense to you, so you label him and tell us we mustn't care. Interesting method of "leadership", there.
I'm pretty sure that it was you whom mentioned CNN and FOX (and the context for my saying that), originally. Did you forget? You mentioned it in a context of him being a right-winger so that meant that his views were "well represented" by cnn and fox and even large portions of the new york times.
Am I mistaking your with someone else?
Now, my response from another section, as promised:
ML of Cleveland Indy Media Center is not really for "freedom of speech"
Consider how Chomsky frames the issue:
"Goebbels was for speech that he agreed with. And [oriented to censoring] the speech he didn't agree with"
I don't remember (and couldn't immediately locate) the entire quote by Chomsky, but what I remember of it was this:
Unless you defend, precisely, those views which you do not agree with, and vehemently are against, you're not for free speech.
Thus, ML, you're not doing genuine "independent" media here with the Cleveland center, and you're engaging in censorship; you may call it what you will, but your "editing" comes down to a quite similar mode of operation utilized by mainstream filterers.
Btw, the "he has lots of places he can still post" argument is b.s. Cleveland is setting a *precedent*, and I note that Urbana-Champagne, and possibly other "smaller" "independents" are finding it quite easily to follow suit. This issue, then, is very serious in terms of the "independent media" phenomenon.
As for your talk about Robert Meade being either a covert operative or being used by "government handlers", I find this strange that you would push this argument as you are. Have you not read and taken into consideration Brian Glick's praxis-style suggestions in South End Press' _War At Home: Covert Action Against US Activists and What We Can Do About It_? Perhaps it's time you made some time to read this thin book that costs only $5.
"Irrational" behavior. Do I really need to demystify that game you play?
You say:
"Since IMC is an open publishing system, a certain amount of "noise" has to be accepted. Eventually, there are limits."
I'm going to post this one on the global indy site, for their information.
You directly go on to say:
"Whether Bobby is in fact, a raving mentally-ill flake, is a point that could be called into question. He certainly
demonstrated last night that he is capable of is of acting in ways that seemingly belie his public persona when he flooded the Newswire with articles of a type which have not previously appeared here."
It seems to me that articles, and ideas, which have not appeared here would certainly be grounds, for ANYONE, to want to contribute. From Robert's perspective, then, IMCs of the world are *needing* his perspective. He's convinced of this, apparently, and thus has spent hours and hour, even days, perhaps weeks, making sure the *world* knows about his beliefs, as misdirected as they are.
Like I said before, he's got himself some germs of truth, he seems to have just been diverted by the usual John Birch Society-styled right wing manipulation.
You say:
"There are distinct signs that "Bobby" is actually connected to others which typically flood global IMC with questionable
posts. Are they different individuals, the latest wrinkle on COINTELPRO-type disinformation campaign, or simply one nut with a grudge? Only the government may know for sure. The nature of these actions indicate that it may not actually be a few off-topic posters, but rather a campaign orchestrated to undermine IMC credibility during a time of crisis."
I disagree with your last view, because I have experience with people who are like Robert (including deaf people, whom, like others severely marginalized in our society, can sometimes be victims of propaganda from the right, and the mainstream. Hell, not too many years ago, I myself would have been similar in persistence and semi-articulateness...
If we genuinely want to deal with this situation in an independent manner (together with the ideals of our beliefs), we may also imagine that the "lone nuts" of the world can be USED by cointelpro-styled work, without them even knowing such.
What I'm seeking to get at is that we shouldn't attempt to further marginalize people and their ideas just because they appear to be "crazy" to us. R.D. Laing, the late leftist radical psychiatrist brings this home in his book _The Politics of Experience_ with:
"As domains of experience become more and more alien to us, it will take greater and greater open-mindedness to conceive of their existence."
I stand firmly in dissent that the Cleveland Indy Media Center would choose to "edit" out all "crazy" posts and their posters. Where will this belief system lead us to?
ML said:
"Is this a sign of government covert media operations? Could be. It could also be connected to the threatening phone calls that our IMC has been receiving since Sept. 11. There are many in our society who believe that it proves their patriotism to engage in such childish and reprehensible, not to mention un-American, behavior."
Please don't scapegoat young people--re: "childish"-- (or so-called "mentally ill" people) to elucidate your points.
ML says:
"Whoever they are, they should know that IMCs, for all their open and tolerant nature, will defend themselves from such nonsense. Allowing such behavior to go unchecked only undermines the IMC for the use of regular posters and readers. We regret such actions, but we will also not allow the forces of repression or simple madness to make the IMC unusable."
Another point:
If Robert was in fact a covert operator, or being used in such a way, "editing" posts by him would not be very easy, if even possible. Those who are well-funded to attack us will always find ways to out-manuver these kinds of unsophisticated blocking methods as you are seeking to begin here with Robert. Your "editing" ultimately only blocks out those independent individuals whom have views and understandings of the world which you and a few other ideologically challenged persons vehemently disagree with.
Why don't you let the rest of us free to explore and better understand the Robert Meades of the world?? If all IMCs ultimately elect to implement a policy like Cleveland's IMC, then it will be time, once again to begin a new, more genuinely independent undertaking. Don't you see how this whole situation and your apparent lack of understanding of the broader implications of your chosen policy is similar to the fracas going on with Pacifica Radio and its Berkeley/NYC affiliates?
The rest of ML's post speaks volumes for itself:
One additional point.
You seem to have the same problem as many others, confusing censorship with
editing. There are substantial differences between the two concepts that are
important to understand. It is not even within our power to censor "Bobby". He is
free to post his crap anywhere he pleases still, just not any longer here at U-C
IMC. We have NOT silenced him, just decided that he no longer will be tolerated
for his racist, anti-Semitic views, which were not even communicated in a rational
form.
We consider that continued use of the Newswire to spread such views would
reflect far worse on the IMC than the unfortunate need to restrict his use of the
IMC. This decision took us two months and his escalating irrational behavior to
finally come to the decision that we made. He had plenty of opportunity to get his
point across and there has been nothing new in his stuff, except becoming even
more vile, recently.
Editing is a different matter than censorship and is ultimately the prerogative of the
IMC collective. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to come to meetings
and argue your point.
Tolerance has its limits. Bobby found those limits.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Go see ML's post at Cleveland Indy Media Center for yourself (below Robert's there):
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=837
|
|
ML: apology for the cnn/fox comment |
by damn fool
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Oct 2001
|
|
I just noted that I originated the comment about cnn/fox in this thread, sorry about that. Apparently I got my response mixed up with someone else who was articulating themselves for censorship/"editing" of Robert/all "crazies" and said to the effect that Robert's views are already represented by the mainstream filter-oriented press, and gave examples like cnn and "much" of the new york times. I thought it was you. Am I wrong? |
|
Paul: concerning hidden stories and a solution |
by damn fool/one who wants meaningful solutions
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Oct 2001
|
It took me awhile, but I found your link to the hidden stories section. Since you're going to allow some note of it, why not put the note down at the bottom of the right-hand column of linked stories, by the "more stories" link? Seems to me that this would be more *forward* of you.
If you keep the "hidden stories" section pretty much out of the way of people who regularly visit (I never noted it before I actually knew it was there), it will be easy to tell everyone, at some point, that few people visit the link, and thus is "okay" to shut down.
Don't you think that sounds like a reasonable conclusion that I/others used to censorship games would come up with?
If your IMC wishes to be straightforward about the phenomenon, kindly make use of a better place so that people will actually notice which stories are being hidden in their regular perusing of the site. |
|
to :damn fool/one who wants meaningful solutions " |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Sure, I'd be glad to make the "hidden posts" more apparent -- in my copious spare time. This is not meant to be a dismissive answer. It is genuine, but it also means that it isn't something which is going to happen in the next 5 minutes.
No one seems to want to acknowledge how much time I spend keeping the site working and how much time I spent simply making sure that the hidden posts could be made accessible in the first place. If we really wanted to censor someone we'd delete their posts and never speak of it again -- then who'd know? But that's not what we do, and not what we done.
Every forum must have rules in order to work, otherwise they become useless as their purpose is washed away in a sea of irrelevance. Yes, somebody must judge irrelevance, that must happen. But the IMC is an open place--YOU can become that person who judges irrelevance or chooses that it never be judged.
But, yes, you have to be HERE in Urbana-Champaign, because, quite frankly, this forum is primarily intended to be useful to people who live here first. It is funded and staffed by people from here, thus those are the people who make the decisions.
But hear this clearly -- anyone can get involved if she is willing to put in some time. Nobody has been turned away who wanted to do some work, regardless of how much her ideas dissent from other'.
To you who would solve the problem, you are welcome and invited to come to the Urbana IMC, 218 W. Main St. in Urbana, IL to talk out any policy with any of us. We work by open consensus--anyone who shows up will be included in the decision making process. But, yes, you must be there for it to work. If Bobby wants to walk in tomorrow he WILL be welcomed to participate if he so chooses. And so will you. |
|
Bobby Meade=damn fool=one who... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Oct 2001
|
All these people are the same author whose sick joke has gone on too long.
From "one who..." comments to the U-C IMC Use Policy:
http://urbana.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2544&group=webcast
"One example is ML of the Cleveland IMC and how he states that he and his collective made a decision to "edit"/block "deaf messenger's" information. Here's a link, sorry it's not direct to these actual words, I'll try to do so in the future:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=837 "
Please note that "one who..." also is under the same delusion as "Bobby" and "damn fool" that I am somehow involved in the Cleveland IMC. "damn fool" admits to being "one who..' in his comment above.
How could all these people get the same thing WRONG?
Because they are likely all the same person, with an apparent serious problem with a split personality. Or perhaps he just gets his jollies stirring up shit on IMC. Or he has some sick obsession with proving how "authoritarian" the U-C IMC collective is because we would prefer that the website not carry gay-baiting, anti-Semitic preaching.
It should be noted that "Bobby" ignored the connection already made between him and "damn fool" in his latest comments (what’s the matter, don’t want to go there for some reason?) and which can now be extended to include "one who..." in his comments above. Bobby, in the past, has apparently never read or commented on the posts of others on IMC. How did he all of the sudden find these comments attached to a story other than one he wrote himself and join in the fray? Because he wrote the story above and started this thread, all under the pseudonym of "damn fool" himself.
In fact it seems now that ALL those who have offered a complaint about our dealings with Bobby on U-C IMC are, in fact, Bobby himself, or whoever has concocted the character of "Bobby." It should further be noted that NONE of these "people" have bothered to show up at meetings of the collective to voice an opinion in person.
It is difficult to fathom how anyone with a legitimate political argument to make would do so by inventing a piece of trash such as "Bobby" to make his point. It appears that whatever argument that is being made is so weak that it will not pass scrutiny by simply writing and posting it to IMC.
We do have an e-mail address for this individual now.
crucial_ (at) ziplip.com
Just more bait? Who cares, the welcome has been worn out and we are not amused. Needless to say, he is toast here.
But we do intend to continue to make fun of the concept of "Bobby", the IMC's equivalent to having W as unelected president. |
|
