The Sad Decline of Indymedia by Chuck0 for InfoShop news 10:40am Mon Dec 9 '02 It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center opened up its first website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in December 1999. The first IMC website came out of years of alternative and grassroots media activism. By a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called the "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader to be a reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY, participatory media production... print article December 8, 2002 It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center opened up its first website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in December 1999. The first IMC website came out of years of alternative and grassroots media activism. By a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called the "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader to be a reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY, participatory media production. The IMC network recently observed its 3rd anniversary and the 100th IMC went online, but the IMC project is facing some serious problems which, if they aren't addressed by the supporters of the IMC network, will eventually destroy the wonderful idea that is Indymedia. There are some that would argue that the Indymedia network needs a stronger organization to address its current and persistent problems. This may be somewhat true, but those of us who have pressed for reforms find ourselves at the mercy of a network of people who are afraid to step forward and make tough decisions. It might help if there were some more organized processes, but I see the chief problem with Indymedia these days to be a political one, not an organizational or technical problem. The IMC Network has a statement of principles and so do most local IMCs. However, the political orientation of the IMC has never been firmly established. Other IMC volunteers and myself have strongly argued for a series of regional IMC meetings and conventions to resolve these questions. The problems with the IMC's vague politics is not so much what ideology it should embrace, rather what ideologies and content the IMC Network rejectsand opposes. This vagueness on politics has allowed an international network of right wingers and racists to abuse and disrupt the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's functionality and reputation in ways that may not be fixable without stepping on lots of toes. If you are a regular visitor to the IMC-Global website (http://www.indymedia.org), you may have noticed some big changes earlier this year. The "open" newswire was moved off the front page for a variety of reasons. The most diplomatic reason was that many felt that the features being created by local IMCs should be featured on the Global website. This was a solid idea and should have been implemented despite the other reasons. The messier reason why the open newsire was relocated was because the IMC Global volunteers were fighting a losing campaign against right wing disruption of the website. This disruption aimed to establish "free speech" space on the Indymedia websites for right wing views and racist posts--the people doing this knew that the liberal free speech attitudes of most IMC volunteers would paralyze them from implementing consistent moderation. This right wing attack also included the posting of constant anti-semitic content, right wing op-eds and articles (carefully stripped of their source infromation), conspiracy theories, and other crap designed to ruin the reputation of the Independent Media Network. I was part of the IMC Global Newswire collective during this period and made proposals concerning a process to deal with this problems. I also painstakenly documented the attack patterns by the right wingers and showed that certain individuals were posting similar content at the same time to various IMCs. This campaign by our enemies was successful because the IMC volunteers refused to implement aggressive moderation and otherwise dragged their feet until the changes were made earlier this year. What did we lose when the right-wingers won? First, we lost the Indymedia network as a public space for our activists. If you remember what the IMC websites were like in the year after Seattle, you will remember them as places where activists came together to talk about issues. After the right wingers had their way for a year, you would commonly hear activists complain about Indymedia and say that they didn't bother with Indymedia anymore. Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take aggresive action against racist and anti-semitic posts further damaged the Indymedia's reputation with Jewish people and people of color. We understand that some pro-Israel extremists think that anycriticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but the IMC network became a hotbed of just plain anti-Jewish articles, opinions, and comments. Part of the problem within the IMC network is that most activists refused to stand up to the free speech totalitarians within the network, who argued that everything posted should stay visible to the public. I've been a free speech advocate for many years and often considered myself to be a free speech zealot, but not even I would argue that our websites should provide anyspace for right wing and racist views. The racists have their websites--we don't need to use our limited resources to promote their hideous and offensive views. The net result of this inaction is that racist and anti-semitic views became normalizedon Indymedia websites. Sure, newswire moderators would remove the occasional racist rant or picture, but lots of stuff was left online. This normalizationof racist content showed the racists and right wingers that they could have their way with Indymedia. It also alienated lots of potential Indymedia supporters. Why should a Jewish activist participate in an alternative media project that tolerates hate speech against that person? I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of conspiracy content to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I have no problem with the occasional conspiracy-type article posted to an IMC website, but I think there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, not just in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief stakeholders: the activist community (and movements). I still remain a big supporter of the Indymedia project. The Indymedia project has become a revolutionary force that has greatly empowered DIY journalists, rank-and-file activists, and average working people. This essay is not meant to criticize IMC volunteers, rather to call out to supporters of alternative media projects to speak up and demand that the IMC make some tough decisions to address these vexing and persistent problems. The Indymedia project has great potential. Let's not throw out the baby with bathwater in our efforts not to step on toes. portland.indymedia.org/front.html3?articl... add your comments Source file

A suggestio by vhyujf 1:04am Wed Dec 11 '02 address: bnk phone: b kjg bkjg print comment The reason why the "decline of Indymedia" is inherent, is because you fascist like to see yourselves as outsiders. In fact the Media in America is cdontrolled by fascist such as yourselves. To wit - The Fascist new York Times an ultra-liberal rag is not only extremely liberal if someone writes something t6hat disagrees with the lib eral rulership they won't be published. Just like in the satanic and fascist Baath/satan party in "iraq" DEATH TO SATANISM (JISLM) and DEATH TO THE MUSLOFASCIST SUPPORTERS (NATIONALIST SOCIALISTS) b jgt add your comments

ah by len 1:19am Wed Dec 11 '02 print comment You illustrate the problem perfectly add your comments

Rights and responsibilities - an example by TeeJay 10:43am Fri Dec 13 '02 print comment The following are the "rules" for PCGamer Forum in the UK. I know it is just a videogaming site, but it has some of the best political discussion of anywhere I have ever been on the internet bar none. All *points of view* are tolerated but gratuitously offensive comments are not as they they don't allow free speech they destroy it. It is just lik being in a room full of people and having extremists deliberately provoking fights and violence. Anyway enough of me, here's the rules (London stylee): IF NEW TO THE FORUM, READ THIS MESSAGE. IGNORANCE OF THE RULES OF THE FORUM WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN EXCUSE FROM THE MANAGEMENT. THANK-YOU. Welcome to the PC GAMER forum! It's a forum for the readers of PC GAMER magazine - and other assorted good folk - to discuss matters pertaining PC games. Read this entire message before considering entering. It'll be better for all of us. Please practice general netiquette at all times. Do not write your messages in ALL CAPS, as it makes you look like as if you're screaming, or just a mad raving lunatic. Do not insult people pointlessly. Do not troll by saying pointlessly provocative titles. Do not be a fool. This isn't Tellytubbies, so we don't want to set a strict rule regarding language, except it header titles described below. Consider the average level of expletives considered reasonable in pleasant company. Note that people whose posts consist of nothing but expletives will be gagged. In order to make this thing work, I will be sending my team to sterilise threads that serve no use. These include personally abusive, grotesquely off-topic and desperately surreal threads. This is not a democracy. This is a semi-benevolent dictatorship. Behave. Some threads are clearly started without thought. The response to it shouldn't be flaming the unfortunate in question - this just perpetuates the nasty atmosphere and in many cases its ignorance of what's been discussed and allowed in the forum rather than genuine maliciousness. A thread that you believe should be deleted, simply post a message asking me to remove the thread, with me in the "To" part of the message. I will look at the thread and delete it if I agree with you. If you see that someone else has already posted to the thread asking to remove it - and you agree with them - don't post anything else to the thread Why? Because if you post to it, it skips to the top of the list. By posting to it, you're making it more visible to everyone else. Essentially, it means you make more prominent whatever ridiculous opinion you despise so much. So, if you really care, don't post anything in these threads. That last one's he important one. It's especially aimed at those who like to think themselves as forum regulars. If you want a good forum, obey. Discussions of races/countries/groups/whatevers foibles generally will be deleted. Discussions about races/countries/groups/whatevers specifically are generally reasonable. For example, a discussion about the vagaries of the American election is reasonable. A discussion about all Americans being evil will lead to you being gagged. When entitling a thread, don't put an expletive in it. Reasonable swearing is acceptable within a message, but not in the title. It looks tacky and reduces the atmosphere of the forum. Doing it repeatedly will lead to gagging. Complaints about gagging should go to Me. Include your log-in name so I can remember why I nuked you. Note, I'm doing this for kicks. I don't get paid for it. Equally, I'm not able to insult you back due to being an efficient employee. This means, like waitresses and barstaff, I hold the right not to deal with you if you're being abusive to me. This is, of course, different to criticising my work. Calling me by any expletive will get you - yes, you've guessed it - gagged. Finally, don't come to me with freedom of speech arguments. This is a house. If you insult anyone or act a fool inside my house, I make you leave. Yours, A Higher Moral Authority. add your comments

Capitalist Conspiracy Theory by free marketeer 11:10pm Fri Dec 20 '02 print comment It's pretty funny to see Chuck0 ranting against conspiracy theories when he is a proponent of one of the biggest ones - that capitalism is a big conspiracy by anyone who wants to own property or make a profit to enslave everyone else who happens to own less property or make less profit. And of course he is as bigoted against them as Hitler was against the Jews and like Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot, etc. would throw them all in camps -- unless he just exterminated them. I do agree that the obviously racist stuff should be banned, but characterizing as "right wing" the 95% of humanity that just wants to do a little business and banning their free speech is definitly fanatical and bigotted. add your comments

It is worth it. by Ipomea 4:14am Sat Dec 28 '02 sally@premier1.net print comment New to Forum. Dialog, disagreement, etc is what ultimately gives us a critical eye to all media. Hatred and vitreol are not useful in this process. If ones language is limited to outbursts of racism and anger, there is no dialog. Freedom of speech includes freedom of listening. If one does only half, it is neither communication or constructive. I say nuke-em if they can't engage constructively. add your comments

whatever by whatever 3:39pm Sun Dec 29 '02 address: whatever phone: whatever whatever print comment this form of broadcoast and discussion is no rather a "leftist" project, than a "rightist". It is just a political and democratic one. So this ought to be the point from which the fight against undemocratic statements should start: The so called "democratic consensus", rather than a certain leftist position yet to be found. There is just one "problem": this would also lead to the expulsion of any kind of stalinist approach. As a regular observer of my local Indymedia, to me it seems to be a leftist phenomenon to call each other "stalinists" (or similar constructs), and there is absolutely no consensus on who is and who is not. So how can local "indymedia-chiefs" be prevented from using their censorship-powers to push forward their definition of "stalinism"? There is one possibility offering itself: no comments allowed, just pure (!)independent(!) broadcast, maybe accompanied by a series of comments by the local staff. A collective of related local newspapers. And the readers in the role of judges, who have to decide whom to trust. At least the two parts (broadcast/scussion) should be stronger divided than they are now. add your comments

leftists are racist morons by ann coulter 11:39am Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment Ann Coulter: Leftists Love Hate Speech Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com Wednesday, June 26, 2002 Editor's note: This is part one of a review of Ann Coulter's new book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right." See NewsMax.com's exclusive interview with her. If I were a liberal I’d lay awake nights worrying that I might somehow attract the attention of Ann Coulter and find myself in the sights of a writer the Washington Post’s Lloyd Grove calls a "human Uzi." In her new book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," Coulter takes aim at leftists' hate speech, hypocrisy, lies and elitism. She lets loose a barrage that will leave her targets riddled with the truth they fear much as vampires fear crucifixes. From the opening line, "Political debate in this country is insufferable," to the closing lines describing liberals as "savagely cruel bigots who hate Americans and lie for sport," Coulter never lets up. Her theme revolves around the fact that American "liberals" are utterly bankrupt intellectually and spiritually, recoiling from the truth. As William Buckley once explained that the late Robert Kennedy refused to appear on his TV show "Firing Line" for the same reason that "baloney rejects the meat grinder," leftists cannot allow themselves to be exposed to facts. Faced with cold, hard facts, they can respond only with invective and lies. As a political philosophy American "liberalism" is among the walking dead. Like the character in the movie "The Trouble With Harry," it refuses to stay buried. With this book Coulter has taken her literary scalpel in hand, autopsied the corpse and exposed the great void she found within its rotting but still-talking carcass. It is devoid of guts; all that remains is the stench. This book will get your juices flowing and make you eager to join Coulter in the front lines where, as some Union army officer once told Gen. Phil Kearney when he asked where he should put his troops during the Peninsula campaign, "Anywhere, General, the fighting is lovely all along the line." Part One When All Else Is Lost, Liberals Resort to Slander Leftists have forgotten how to debate. "Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is," Ann Coulter writes in "Slander." She describes the liberal catechism as a creed that includes: "A hatred of guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment and race discrimination … the most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals responding to statistics on concealed-carry permits." The same leftists who are so eager to invent unconstitutional "hate crimes" laws eagerly practice hate speech. Noting the left-wing domination over "every major means of news dissemination for a quarter century," she goes on to catalog the wall-to-wall liberal propaganda to which the nation is exposed from dawn to dusk. Americans, she reminds us, wake up in the morning listening to "Today Show" host Katie Couric "berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill 10 years after the hearing," or "haranguing Charlton Heston on the need to stop school shootings." Co-host Matt Lauer mourns the government’s "failure" to pass a law decreeing national vacation time, and the New York Times "breathlessly announces 'Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans'" without mentioning that the same feeling is shared by all those political prisoners rotting away in Castro’s dungeons. Time magazine’s Barbara Ehrenreich "gives two thumbs up to the Communist Manifesto," which Coulter reminds us resulted in the slaughter of at least 100 million people. Then comes the letters to the editor of the New York Times, written by "pathetic little parakeet males [was she describing Rep. Henry Waxman?] and grim, quivering, angry women on the Upper West Side of Manhattan hoping to be chosen as that day’s purveyor of hate ("I was reminded by your editorial that Bush wasn’t even your average politically aware Yalie; he was busy branding freshmen at his fraternity house.") Then, of course, we come to the evening hours, where Mr. Dan Rather can be found "falsely accusing Republicans of all manner of malfeasance or remarking that a president who has been impeached, disbarred, and held in contempt for his lies is an 'honest man.'" Rather takes few pains to conceal his blatant bias, as recently commented on by his "60 Minutes" colleague Andy Rooney, who told Larry King that Gunga Dan is "transparently liberal." To Rather, a prosecutor such as Ken Starr investigating a Democrat miscreant is always "a Republican prosecutor," unless he’s a Democrat investigating a member of the GOP; the House is always the "Republican-controlled House," but the Senate is never "the Democrat-controlled Senate." Coulter’s point: "Instead of actual debate about ideas and issues with real consequences, the country is trapped in a political discourse that increasingly resembles professional wrestling. The ‘Compassionate Conservative’ takes on the ‘Republicans balancing the budget on the backs of then poor.’" Leftists respond to reasonable Republican arguments by alleging they are "planning a second holocaust. No matter how inured one becomes to liberal hate speech, the regularity with which Republicans are compared to Nazis still astonishes." She cites the following examples: Speaking of the GOP’s Contract With America, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said, "When I compare this to what happened in Germany, I hope you see the similarities to what is happening to us." Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., chimed in with, "These are people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they’re worse than Hitler." Former Rep. Patricia Shroeder, D-Colo., charged that surgeon general nominee Henry Foster was "goose-stepping over women’s rights" and told League of Women Voters that Rush Limbaugh’s listeners "are the ones who are goose stepping." Socialists seem to forget that Nazi, of course, stands for National Socialist. Coulter recalls that left-wingers, while recoiling in horror from the idea of calling a woman ugly, had no trouble suggesting that "the ugliest women ever to darken the planet are Paula Jones, Linda Tripp and [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris." Coulter adds, "This, from the party of Bella Abzug." Liberals, Coulter writes are "painfully self-righteous, they have fantastic hatreds, and they could not see the other fellow’s position if you prodded them with hot pokers. They are United States senators, New York Times editors, news anchors and TV personalities. "And they are completely unhinged." Next: Those left-wing snobs. Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Dan Rather/CBS DNC Media Bias A product that might interest you: Ann Coulter tells how the left slanders conservatives add your comments

A somehow related discusion in indyArgentina by Herr Doktor (es mi nick y no lo cambio) 7:24pm Sat Jan 11 '03 print comment Only problem: it´s in spanish and I am a really lousy translator, so you should stick to it. Sorry. Use babelfish if you want. http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/75202.html Another: http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/75137.html http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/74817.html http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/74588.html http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/74630.html add your comments

Stupid Left, Satanic Left by The Truth 11:15am Sun Jan 12 '03 print comment It is impossible to understand politics in the world today without grasping the fundamental fact that there exist two different Lefts. I propose that the two be referred to by everyone as the Stupid Left and the Satanic Left. The two are very different, although they work together. People who are part of the first are simply stupid people. People who are part of the second may in fact be quite shrewd, but are evil and nefarious. There is no third type of leftist. Over time, the Stupid Left has been losing its numbers, as many Stupid Leftists either become smarter or morph into Satanic Leftists, and so desist from being mere Stupid Leftists. So a process of selection is occurring whereby the strength of the Satanic Left within the overall Left grows. The anti-American demonstrations we have been witnessing in Europe and the United States are attended by both kinds of Leftists, although they were organized by Satanic Leftists. Both the Stupid Left and the Satanic Left demonstrate together against the United States, in favor of Saddam Hussein, in favor of destroying Israel and in favor of Palestinian terrorism. But they do so for different reasons. The Stupid Left really thinks that if the U.S. leaves Iraq alone, Saddam will refrain from developing weapons of mass destruction. The Satanic Left supports Iraq precisely because it knows that Saddam will develop them — and will use them. The Stupid Left is anti-American because it thinks people in America are oppressed, poor, mistreated and that America is an evil country. The Satanic Left is anti-American precisely because it knows the opposite is the case. The Stupid Left hates America because it thinks America promotes evil, oppressive regimes around the world. The Satanic Left hates America because America gets in the way of the evil, oppressive regimes that the Satanic Left promotes. The Stupid Left denounces capitalism and globalization and supports communism because it really believes that people are poor and oppressed under capitalism but free and happy under socialism. The Satanic Left denounces capitalism and supports communism precisely because it knows that the opposite is the case. The Stupid Left does not know that communism produces gulags. The Satanic Left supports communism precisely because it produces gulags and also because the Satanic Leftists presume they will be placed in charge of the gulags. The Stupid Left wants a Palestinian state because it thinks that such a state will pursue peace alongside Israel. The Satanic Left wants a Palestinian state precisely because it knows such a state will launch a war of destruction against Israel and endless atrocities against the Jews. The Stupid Left thinks Israel mistreats Arabs. It does not know that Arab regimes mistreat Arabs. The Satanic Left knows Israel does not mistreat Arabs and Arab regimes do. It wants Israel destroyed not because it thinks Israel is unjust, but rather because it hates Jews. The Stupid Left opposes Israeli armed force being used to suppress terror because it thinks that terror can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations. The Satanic Left opposes Israeli armed force being used to suppress terror because it supports terror against Jews. The Stupid Left is convinced that most Arabs seek peace, are moderate and decent people, and have a legitimate grievance against the West. The Satanic Left supports Arab aggression and terror precisely because it knows this is not true. The Stupid Left thinks that Palestinian leaders and Arab nationalists are progressive and liberal. The Satanic Left supports the same people precisely because it knows they are fascists. The Stupid Left is under the impression that Arab states have elections and freedom and enlightenment. The Satanic Left supports Arab regimes because they want to destroy Israel and murder Jews. The Stupid Left thinks the West should not place its Arab residents under surveillance because they are decent people and loyal to their adopted countries. The Satanic Left opposes such surveillance because it wants more Bin Ladens. The Stupid Left thinks that Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace. The Satanic Left wants the settlers evicted or killed because they are an obstacle to the Palestinians destroying Israel. The Stupid Left thinks the Middle East conflict is about Arab human rights. The Satanic Left knows the Middle East conflict is about suppressing Jewish human rights. They support this suppression. The Stupid Left thinks the Middle East conflict is about land and borders. The Satanic Left knows it is about Israel`s existence. The Stupid Left thinks Israel is a discriminatory, apartheid country. The Satanic Left wants Israel destroyed so that the Arabs can impose an apartheid regime directed against the Jews and any other non-Moslems. The Stupid Left believes it is trying to reform and change America. The Satanic Left wants to destroy America. The Stupid Left thinks socialism works. The Satanic Left wants socialism because it knows it does not. The Stupid Left thinks it is opposing racism. The Satanic Left`s fundamental urge is to impose its own mode of racism and anti-Semitism on the world. The Stupid Left thinks Zionism is a form of racism. The Satanic Left supports anti-Zionism precisely because it is a form of anti-Semitism. The Stupid Left chooses its political positions on the basis of the desire by leftists to make their mommies and daddies mad. So does the Satanic Left, but they really hate their parents. The Stupid Left says it favors equality. The Satanic Left favors transferring power to itself so that it can oppress others. The Stupid Left supports Marxist groups all over the world because it thinks these are non-violent and favor pluralism. The Satanic Left supports them because they know these are violent and totalitarian. The Stupid Left thinks animals should be treated like humans. The Satanic Left thinks humans should be treated like animals. The Stupid Left wants socialism because it thinks that people will not have to work under socialism and because it thinks that leftists will have a lot of friends under socialism. The Satanic Left wants socialism because Satanic Leftists will not have to work under socialism while they turn everyone else into slaves, and because they`ll get to shoot their friends. add your comments