community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
IMC Censors Fear Free speech
by readitbeforetheydeleteit!
Wednesday, May. 21, 2003 at 2:30 PM
Join us now to promote the free exchange of ALL ideas on this site!
The "editors" of PGH/IMC are going to extraordinary lengths to discredit Ewan Kenkesmearse and those that have posted in agreement with him. Disclaimers have been posted in bright red, posts have been hidden and removed! To save the integrity of this site and to protect free speech, it is imperative to let the editors know that you disagree with their capricious editorial methods. SPEAK OUT OR LOSE YOUR VOICE!!!
Overreaction?
by Dan P.
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 12:39 PM
Perhaps it's just me, but I haven't really noticed anything that you've been talking about, and think that the IMC collective does a pretty good job at what they do. I get the feeling people are crying wolf here. It's pretty apparent that they're going out of their way to put every rant against them on the mainpage because they don't want to be accused of acting unfairly, when in my opinion only 2-3 people out there really care about this whole "scandal."
For the purposes of full disclosure, I know at least a few people from the collective personally.
how many do you know personally
by who are critical of censorship?
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 2:03 PM
we already know you're buddies with the people who run this page (who I believe, overall do a pretty good job) but how can you say there are only two or three of us who believe censorship is bullshit in all forms?
sensationalism
by Michael
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 2:47 PM
There are disclaimers on two stories that are currently on our newswire "dealing with" this topic. The coverage of "IMC Censorship" is sensationalist name-calling at best. Please read my post on one of the two articles bearing a bright red disclaimer for further detail. Thanks for your support of IMC! > definition of censorship
I didn't say that.
by Dan P.
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 11:50 AM
I didn't say that only 2-3 people have a problem with "censorship," I said that only 2-3 people actually care about the case in hand and view it as constituting censorship.
I don't view it as censorship. I view it as someone misusing IMC and crying about it when his posts became hidden.
The atmosphere here is not censorship. Personally, I'd like to see less conversation about the IMC and more about news that should be important to us, and no, I don't believe that the editorial collective is preventing that. I think it's not happening because people whine more than discuss news. Whining is a problem in a lot of circles, actually, I was at a benefit potluck for the pgh-122 and everyone discussed how much the police suck but nobody discussed the war. It seems to me that various lefty movements (many of which I'm affiliated with, so don't think I'm an outsider criticizing) get caught up in whining and lose focus. Let's not have free media go the same way.
Overreaction ??? IMC is delusional
by Ivan Kesannasse
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 5:39 PM
Why is it that IMC always says that their critics are comprised of only the same 2 or 3 people and that their supporters are too numerous to count? Because IMC is completely out of touch with reality. IMC's fluid definition of "spam" or "censorship" is laughable. IMC regularly removes posts that it just plain finds to be politically or ideologically challenging or offensive to the members of the collective. If the collective had their way this would be the most perfect of mutual admiration societies. Just read some of the correspondence between the collective members about the actions to be taken against IMC site users or as to specific postings. It is a joke that they think they can call their decisions editorial content management. The rules are always inconsistently applied. And now it seems that they have tried to stifle the voice of someone who actually wants to further true open discourse on this site. If John Ashcroft did this to any of you out there this site would be a buzz with calls for jihad. But when IMC does it it seems that this is just an acceptable method of protecting the safe haven of limited thought and discourse that IMC wants it to be so they can control the thought around here.
If what Ewan has said is true you have slandered him by calling him a liar while at the same time precluding him from participating in this discussion. Maybe instead of calling Mr. Kenkesmearse a liar who posts "unsubstantiated" and "untrue" stories you would actually address his concerns AND undo whatever technical exile you have imposed on him so that he might be able to comment here or substantiate his allegations.
Hi, my name is Dan, and I don't run the IMC
by Dan P.
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 9:08 PM
Ivan, I'm the person who said that I get the feeling that the critics are a super-minority of readers of the site (nobody here said that their supporters are too numerous to count) and guess what: I'm not the IMC, I don't sit on the editorial board, I don't even post as many news items as I should.
Given your inability to differentiate between the opinions of a random guy posting to the indymedia and the official opinions of the IMC editorial board, it's no surprise you're as angry as you are. Me, I'm in no position to address any of the concerns you've addressed, I have no power here, yet you're attributing what I say to the IMC. That's terribly unfair, don't you think?
The only people here are out of touch with reality are those who think that the world is about to end because of the IMC editorial board's decision. Ivan, you're really failing to make your case here, because all that the average indymedia reader here (such as myself) is seeing is someone ranting about how evil the IMC editoral board is. You should be driving home to all of us very very specific instances, with links, of when a post was removed for flagrantly inappropriate reasons. Unless you want to suggest that all posts that explain this "problem" with such context are deleted, in which case email me and explain the whole problem, in full: I'll check bugg42@hotmail.com over the next few days.
Hi, My Name is Ivan, and I don't run IMC either.
by Ivan Kesannasse
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 11:23 PM
Okay Dan, so you don't run IMC and have no involvement wiht IMC. I apologize to IMC for my error, but I see no reason to apologize to you. I think you are terribly wrong to think that the critical postings here are only by a couple of people. If you want to believe that, fine. But you will doom yourself to making very bad decisions about this site and the world because you will base your ideas and opinions on some very flawed information.
I actually support the purpsoes of IMC as these have been broadly stated. But I DO NOT support IMC's active censorship, editorializing, and manipulation of discourse on this site. That is counter to the goals of IMC.
As for giving you an email with links to posts and dates and times, forget about it. All you have to do is follow what goes on here. Your tactics are a nice way to try to rationalize that the bad conduct doesn't exist because someone else didn't point it out to you with a neon sign and drag you kicking and screaming away from your narrow-minded views. Read the freakin site and the editorial strings.
I will point you to one link though. I re-read Ewan's posting that started all of this. He referred to the S. Odaminsane Day of Healing and Reflection of a couple of months ago. Not only was this one of the better events covered by IMC, but the whole S. Odaminsane thing started because IMC had censored S. Odamninsane's postings. And everything I read by S. O. seemed pretty interesting, well thought and entertaining to me. With that IMC proved that their editorial policing of the site is only compounded by the editors abject lack of a sense of humor.
RALLY FOR FREEDOM !!! PROTEST IMC's ASSAULT ON FREE AND OPEN DISCOURSE !!!!!
THIS IS A NEWSWIRE!
by pjd
Monday, May. 26, 2003 at 12:58 AM
There is ZERO useful news in the article "IMC Censors Fear Free speech" by readitbeforetheydeleteit!, or the article, "On PGH/IMC censorship" by n.n.f.f.o.r.o.s.--2. Therefore, frankly, the IMC should delete these articles and their comments (including this one - once they read it) in their entireity.
This is not a forum.
This is not a chat-room.
This is not a BBS or a newsgroup. (anyone remember them?)
This is for NEWS of interest to those looking to alternate, non-corporate perspectives on issues important to Pittsburghers.
If you want to see what an unedited newswire looks like, just go to IMC Global - it is so full of right-wing trolls, x-file conspiracy nuts and assorted whackos as to make it the laughingstock of all the alternative/left media.
IMC "IS" THE NEWS
by --
Monday, May. 26, 2003 at 8:46 AM
The "news" item here is IMC and its conduct. The postings should stay. That is about as noncorporate as you can get, since no one else is going to report on IMC's abusive editorial policies.
Agreed!
by big red
Tuesday, May. 27, 2003 at 1:31 PM
This is the most important news item on the site. Indymedias conduct in these matters has been shabby, evasive and dishonest. Can we even trust Indymedias content any longer?
Ewan: Sicko or Professional Troll?
by puhleeze!
Friday, May. 30, 2003 at 11:20 AM
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!
Don't attack someone personally just because you disagree
by Bob Rosh
Friday, May. 30, 2003 at 9:57 PM
I think it is even less productive to go off on someone personally like that. I think IMC did say they did something to keep Ewan from participating here. But you came back and said that he wasn't the spammers that IMC was after. We should be a lot more careful before we commit to deny someone the right to participate in open discussion. Maybe IMC did make a mistake. If the method they used to keep Ewan out did so without identifying his IP, then how can they really be sure he was the spammer and wasn't just logged on at the wrong time like he said. I am a true libertarian, and I am opposed to denying anyone the right to speak their opinion. We are supposed to be open to everyone, even people we may not agree with or really like. Let's not fall to the level of the spammers with personal attacks.
I Agree With Bob
by Ewan
Sunday, Jun. 08, 2003 at 10:22 AM
For additional information, please refer to http://indypgh.org/news/2003/06/6917.php
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)