community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
On PGH/IMC censorship.
by n.n.f.f.o.r.o.s.--2
Monday, May. 19, 2003 at 7:08 PM
<span style="color:#cc0000;">Most readers will be aware that this story is unsubstantiated and untrue. Please refer to IMC Pittsburgh editorial guidelines for reference: <a target=_top href="http://indypgh.org/process/openpub.php#ed">http://indypgh.org/process/openpub.php#ed</a> This site is not a "bulletin board," it is a newswire, and posts here are subject to be legitimately removed for a variety of reasons. -IMC Editorial</span><br><br> This response, originally given on a "hidden" post, is re-posted here so EVERYONE can read and decide for themselves. In the cause of true freedom of expression
For backround, please view Ewan Kerkesmerase's post--which was unfairly hidden by IMC editors.
It seems they [Pgh/IMC] would have to keep track of IP's if they are able to determine that one poster is using different names to post. Problem is...somebody down there at the collective is getting hold of these tracking numbers, and making use of them for attacks against private web pages and e-mail accounts. Maybe the editors of the "collective" need to look within their "organization" to find the individuals who are violating their policies.
As for the IMC policy of "hiding" or deleting posts that they find objectional, this policy seems highly arbitrary and unbalanced. For example, a long paranoid screed that insisted that the holocaust never occurred was allowed to stand on this site. That the editors found this babble inoffensive came as quite a surprise. (And probably surprised the families of many holocaust survivors as well !) Such Anti-jewish slander is offensive to many Americans--of all backrounds. But apparently it wasn't quite offensive enough to be hidden or deleted. Contrast this with that fellow who calls himself "two-balls." His critiques of the "Men against Patriarchy" group, though sexist and derogatory towards the "ARA dudes" was far less offensive and stayed on the point of discussion. His views were censored quickly and thoroughly--because they were critical of the collective. So the arbitrary exercise of the "collectives'" editorial "decision" seems to rest on a set of variables that have little to do with the news value of a particular post, and more to do with the particualr predjudices of the "collective" members.
Kenkesmearse is correct in his assertion that this exercise of editorial powers by the IMC can create a number of signifigant problems. First and foremost is the problem of crediblity. If the "collective" continues these practices, how can they then claim that IMC is a place of free private discussion? They can not. When dissenters are silenced, IMC becomes no better than Faux news....IMC's censorship is akin to an O'Reilly "shout down" of opposing viewpoints. Something that any free thinking person must hate, and fight against.
Secondly, by steering the editrial content of the IMC boards, the editors are then issuing "approval" for certain viewpoints that appear on these pages. This could be legally problematic. For example, there have been postings here that give instructions to would be activists on how to bring physical harm to police. (Something that is grossly offensive to most peace loving members of both the "movement" and society at large.) By "approving" the techniques described, and allowing them to remain posted, IMC must assume a level of responsibilty for any actions that arise from such a posting. There could be potential legal ramifications.
Third, the squelching of "unpopular" critiques runs counter to aims of PGH/IMC. All opinions must get a chance to be read and considered for IMC to fulfill it's primary mission. Without the presence of dissenters--no matter how "immature" the "collective" may find them--IMC becomes little more than rooting section for a small group of like minded individuals who tolerate no beliefs but their own. If that is going to be the case, then there is really no reason for IMC to exist--for it does not offer a true, free alternative to mainstream media.
Lastly, if some members of IMC are tracking IP numbers without the full knowledge of the "collective," and using these numbers for personal attacks, IMC must ferret them out and remove them from the process! I would hope that they take visible steps to accomplish this before somebody has their ISP investigate the attacks by back tracking. One angry poster, who enlists the services of a powerful ISP could wreak havoc on IMC. Once one of those providers get involved in an investigation--they won't stop till they find something--then the feds will be involved...etc.etc.
So I strongly urge the PGH/IMC collective to take one of two steps to rectify their current problems...
1.) IMC should reconsider their arbitrary censorship policy and allow ALL unpopular posts to remain as posted. This would be true to IMC's primary aim of a free and uncensored alternative media source, and would allow the viewers of media to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what they chose to view and what they chose to comment on.
2.) Or... PGH/IMC should drop the charade of being "free and private" and simply be a news board for those that espouse one particular viewpoint. Establish a platform of beliefs and values and edit this site accordingly and consistently. By abandoning claims of "free" expression--IMC would abandon it's primary mission, but at least it would be an up-front, honest way to deal with the issue.
I hope that these ideas are met with open, thinking minds.
Hiding and tracking users...
by john
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 8:37 AM
jmh17@pitt.edu
If you see our editorial policy page, the policies link on the left bar of the front page, we enumerate the reasons for which articles and comments are hidden. As stated on that page, when comments and articles are hidden an email is sent to the list. Feel free to read the list and comment on any problems you have with our decisions. Our policies were developed to create an environment to promote polite discourse and dissemination of information. If you disagree with our editorial policies, then please come to our meetings and take part in the discussion. The IMC is what you make of it.
Now with respect to tracking the IP addresses of users. In the collective, I would say there are approximately 4 or 5 people capable of doing this. The last time I checked, 2 minutes ago, the webserver was not logging ip's of the pages accessed. You should understand that there are ways of determining if multiple posts were made by the same person without explicitly tracking their ip address. If you have any specific problems, then please bring them to our attention. Most of us are fairly open to criticisim especially if it is brought to us in a polite manner.A New Policy
by Sam
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 11:14 AM
I've really grown to dislike IndyMedia. There are just as many FReepers as there are people sincerely interested in alternative media. I think that the whole IndyMedia network needs to seriously reconsider its editorial policy.
No, IndyMedia was not conceived of as a mouthpiece of the Left. However, it *was* intended to publicize news and views that isn't typically seen (or at least focused on) in the mainstream media. The views of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and their ilk, are mainstream, and don't belong here.
Furthermore, IndyMedia *was* founded on progressive values. Thus, while we all certainly don't agree on what *should* be, we all more or less agree on what *shouldn't* be -- racism, sexism, imperialism, colonialism, capitalism (at least unrestricted capitalism), etc. IndyMedia can and should delete (or at least hide) those posts that promote racism (a category under which I would include Zionism, but I suppose that's open to debate), sexism, imperialism, colonialism, unrestrained capitalism, etc.
It's one thing for an entity everyone is forced to fund and participate in (like the American gov't) to dictate what does and does not see print. It's quite another for a voluntary association (like IndyMedia) to do so.
Establishing viable alternative media outlets and popularizing them is the single most important task progressives face. We are not obligated to give equal time to our enemies. They don't and won't give it to us. Our government is launching wars of aggression and destroying our civil liberties. This country is committing suicide and dragging the whole world along with it. We can no longer afford to be hindered by idealism.
.
by John-RPGH
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 12:41 PM
...DAMN IT THERE ARE TOO MANY JOHNS. ...im John from radicalize pittsburgh.
the "hidden" post
by Michael
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 4:04 PM
The post by Ewan was not itself hidden. The story it was posted as a comment to was hidden due to the fact it was a duplicate post of a story already on the IndyPgh newswire. It is an unfortunate technical limitation that comments to hidden stories also become hidden themselves.
There is no reason to hide Ewan's post. As you can see, it survives here on the newswire despite the vigilance of the "censurous" editorial collective. Hopefully, subsequent comments have cleared up other factual errors in the above story, such as IP-logging -- which IndyPgh does not practice.
For anyone who hasn't already, please read our "Hiding Posts" guidelines:
http://indypgh.org/process/openpub.php#ed
This is not a message board. This is a newswire. Some posts that are not explicitly objectionable will be removed for irrelevance, in keeping with the IndyPgh editorial policy.
the original comment
by schnell
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 4:06 PM
am i missing something? the original diatribe by "ewan" was posted twice and the duplicate post was hidden. as far as i can see, the FIRST post, which was identical to the second, is still there and always was.
keep editorial control
by notdelldude
Wednesday, May. 21, 2003 at 9:29 AM
Indymedia needs a degree of editorial control for two reasons,which meet here.
1) probably one of the most dissapointing things about
the internet is the difficulty of getting anything resolved
at a practical level because people who have no practical interest in a topic want to debate or just ramble.
2)The left has a history of letting its events be disrupted
by the right because we confuse free speech with letting everyone have the mike at a rally or even working meeting,regardless of their intent.The right can afford a lot more mikes-and web sites-than we can, let them pay for them.
Summary;If peopel want to argue just to argue,they can go to a coffee shop or set up their own site.
The right didn't destroy anything
by because you had too many mic's
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 1:58 PM
you destroyed yourselves
from what I've seen and read, the only thing that too many speakers at a protest has done was to bore us all to death with too many different agenda pushing "liberals", not right wingers muddying up the focus. I understand not wanting to read senseless drivel posted by dittoheads, but for indymedia to really achieve it's goal of providing INDEPENDANT media, I believe all posts should be allowed to stand, (with the exception of duplicate posts, maybe). If you don't want to argue with these people, then don't. Just because some bushfan posts some BS doesn't mean you have to get caught up in it. Just as there are conservative news sources where these people could be at, there are also plenty of left, liberal, red, green, and anarchist sites that people who are looking for an opinion with those biases could be posting on, but it was my understanding that the indymedia movement was here to provide an INDEPENDANT news outlet (ie free of corporate censorship as well as other forms of censoring/agenda pushing). No, I don't want to read some Nazi fuck's article, but I think it has as much right to be on this site as someone who's violently anti-authoritarian or a birkenstock wearing pseudo environmentalist.
Censorship does not equal freedom no matter who it comes from.
perhaps you misunderstand.
by andy
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 2:20 PM
do you understand what happens when a post is hidden? it is deemed to be against the editorial policy, which itself is pretty skeletal in nature, and the post is hidden from view on the main page. you can easily view everything that is posted to the site by clicking on "view hidden posts." this is, i believe, a very good way of preserving free speech without rendering the website completely useless as a resource.
definition of censorship
by Michael
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 2:32 PM
The IMC editorial collective does not remove posts due to morality or ideology, which would constitute censorship. We hide posts that diverge from the topic of the original story, and for other valid reasons. This is not a bulletin board. This is a newswire. The IMC exists to distribute news and information to the community, not to be a forum for argument and flame wars. Discussion via comments often serves the purpose of clarifying a news item, but please do not interpret our open publishing system as unlimited license to shout forth your viewpoint. This free system is in fact governed by rules set forth in the editorial policy, and the Editorial Collective does its best to see that those rules are observed. To describe this as censorship is unwarranted; it adopts the language of false complaints from those who spam and otherwise abuse the system. We on the IMC Editorial Collective are volunteers trying to do a good job. If you see someone abusing the system, or are concerned about how the system is run, please contact the Editorial Collective: imc-pgh-editorial@indypgh.org before posting your complaints or criticisms to the site and obscuring other local news. Thanks for your cooperation.
on Michael's "definition..."
by .........
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 6:45 PM
As an ex-pat Pittsburgher, I've been a long time user of Indymedia. I like getting a different take on news items, and keeping up with issues in my hometown. All that sort of changed for me after the Rich Mackin shit storm that I followed closely. After the slanderous screwjob you folks put on him--I had questions about the editorial standards too--but never said anything about it. I figured it was a touchy subject that just got out of hand. Now you've got other complaints, by very logical folks who seem to care a lot about some very important free speech issues, and all you want to do is deflect attention from the issues by sloughing these people off as "misleading" and "unreasonable?" By following the recent posts, I gather that the editors are the "unreasonable" parties involved here. Look! readers of Indymedia can EASILY see some of the same things that these folks are talking about. These people aren't making this shit up. Claiming that "morality" or "ideology" is not a factor in Indymedia policy is clearly a falsehood. Claiming otherwise and calling Indymedia's critics "untruthful" is a cowardly smear. True, Indymedia is NOT a bulletin board, unless of course you have a Rich Mackin to burn at the stake! Or somebody thinks there's some freeping (whatever the hell that is) going on. To simply say that posts are hidden or deleted for reasons of "clarity" is false--you silence critics and that's just not cool.
To accuse critics of "obscuring the news" is also a bogus claim. Obviously, some Indymedia users feel that THIS issue is news, and post accordingly. Debate on these issues from all available sides SHOULD be vigorous and free, and I'm puzzled by Indymedia's efforts to suppress these views... Instead of reasoned debate-- we get denial, discredit, denial, discredit...The basic tools of oppression. Shame!
i appreciate your criticism
by Michael
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 9:13 PM
And I agree that the role the IMC Editorial Collective plays is often unpredictable, given collective members' time commitments to other endeavors among other things. A lot of the time, abuse (as the editorial guidelines currently define it -- I agree its definition is open to debate) often gains momentum on IndyPgh because editorial collective members aren't aware it's happening, or because they're uncertain themselves what to do. The way some posts are removed and others remain can seem ideologically slanted, and I do believe Editorial Collective members (including myself) can mistakes due to bias. So it is too optimistic for me to write that the "IMC editorial collective does not remove posts due to morality or ideology." But it is our goal to make decisions based not on morality or ideology, rather based on the standing editorial guidelines. (If you see an instance of bias or any other problem, email us! See below.)
It is reasonable to categorize cries of censorship on IndyPgh as falsehoods. It is reasonable to debunk the claim that the Pittsburgh IMC tracks user IP addresses -- we don't. And it is reasonable to assume that the majority of users don't see this issue as news, to assume that the many critical posts under different names are in fact by the same author -- based a on common rhythm, vocabulary and set of typographical flourishes, not a common IP address. If the critics are seriously concerned that the Editorial Collective is failing its mission, please email us! (imc-pgh-editorial@indypgh.org) If you really think we're a bunch of corrupt leftist thugs bent on mind control, why waste the energy to add to the newswire posts we could easily delete, were we truly bent on silencing "opposition" voices?
If you think there's a problem with IndyPgh, it would really help us if you let us know via email. But if you post a list of allegations against the Editorial Collective without contacting us to confirm our intent or encourage us to right our wrongs, it doesn't ring true. It seems like you just want to disrupt this resource.
We're members of the editorial collective because we care about independent media, and we want to do right by IndyPgh and right by its users. Get in touch with us via email, and if we don't address the problem you find to your satisfaction, then you might think about posting to the site. But first you should ask yourself: is it news?
Because when you disagree with an IMC policy or practice, the first thing you should do is talk to us. We'll listen. imc-pgh-editorial@indypgh.org
Thanks for supporting the IMC!
IMC COllective Liars
by N.N.F.F.O.S.O.R. -3
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 9:17 AM
Hey IMC Editors, you are full of it. You are trying to hide your own abuse of your trusted positioon with this site by attacking the people that criticize you. Instead of substantiating your claims that you don't track ISPs, you post big red notices at the top of the critical posts calling the critics liars. Maybe Ewan and others here can't give some techy substantiation of your tracking, but what they describe sure sounds like it would necesarily require tracking if you are to idenitfy the persons to be excluded. Grow up Editors !!!!
hidden posts
by me
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 11:12 PM
Where are these hidden posts??? And how can we view them?>
THat's Just It, they are hidden so you can view them
by you
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 11:25 PM
So now that the posts are safely hidden, you can sleep at night comfortable in the belief that IMC will not let any potentially challenging of offending ideas, views or opinions harm you. Nighty night Mouseketeers.
Ewan: Sicko or Professional Troll?
by Puhleeze!
Friday, May. 30, 2003 at 3:40 PM
What kind of work do you do Ewan, that you spend all of your workday obsessing about how to get your troll off on the IMC site? Must be some kind of government work. That would be a dichotomous conservative! Are you with Homeland Security? Are you just a provacateur? A professional troll?
If you're really just a pathetic loser with nothing better to do with your life than to stumble upon a website, abuse it, and then complain when your abuse is pointed out, I feel pretty sorry for you.
The behavior that you described as you tried to post to IMC is borderline obsessive/psychotic behavior! How much time did you spend trying to figure out whether you'd been blocked? How many different computers did you try? Did you drive down the street right away to the Starfucks to try it out, or did you wait until lunch break or after work? Have you been lurking on their e-mail lists for a while now, or did you decide to spend a couple of hours of your "free" (work) time reading all of their archived e-mails? How much time did you spend trying to figure out if they were breaking their own rules? Did you read all of the mails back to the formation of their IMC? Did you study all of this info before you ever posted to the IMC? None of this sounds the least bit obsessive to me, but perhaps you should see a therapist, becuase you're either doing this because you're sick, or because you're getting paid to do it.
These people don't work hard volunteering their time, money and equipment for you to wank off on any time you want to. They do what they do for a reason, and all of the IMCs have a mission statement. Check it out since you have so much time on your hands!
I do have a solution:
I'm pretty sure that you could get a blog if you wanted to say whatever you want to say over the internet without being censored! http://www.blogspot.com Lots of blogs are even FREE! You can spout off all you like all over the internet without having to wory about those rotten IMCers, and they can have their website to work for thier mission statement without spamming abusers like you!
Everybody wins, everybody's happy!
Oh that's real nice
by Thank You
Monday, Jun. 02, 2003 at 10:07 AM
This is the problem. why do you have to resort to name calling and other rude behavior when you views are challenged. This person raised a valid point. It should be the most important discussion here, but the people who believe that IMC is their own personal soapbox would rather not talk about this dirty little secret. The IMC editors have not convinced me that what ever it was that they did to keep Ewan away was not an arbitrary decision. If they were not tracking IP's how can they be certain that this was the spammer that they were after. And that whole cloak and dagger tecno death penalty should have us all up in arms. Free and open debate is what IMC is supposed to be about. If your views are sound you have no fear of challenging debate or childish heckling. So why not just open up the process. Or should we all be afraid that we will be the next one on the receiving end of the IMC Tech Squad's PC exile.
misunderstanding
by Michael
Wednesday, Jun. 04, 2003 at 12:42 PM
to clarify briefly: the IMC is not about "debate"; it's about news. discussion can add meaning to a news item, but entrenched debate is not the purpose of this site: if you want to bicker, you should take it elsewhere.
Update
by Ewan
Sunday, Jun. 08, 2003 at 10:21 AM
This news items continues to evolve. Please refer to http://indypgh.org/news/2003/06/6917.php
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)